# advanced mcacc and my bi-polar tweets...



## hearingspecialist (Mar 15, 2010)

After now close to 10 hours of tweaking (from getting it last Wed.) and playing with the pro eq and reverb 3d features I started to really explore the difference MCACC was providing when measuring my bi-polar high freq drivers. I noticed a little something on the 3d graph and started thinking maybe mcacc was really having a hayday with those highs. I will qualify: After constant calibrations and re-measuring using the 30-50ms vs. 20-40ms schemes my listening experiences were obvious but nothing drastic per se', but now when I removed the rear firing matched tweets the whole deal changed and high freqs were very different and measured better after viewing the eq sliders. The 20-40ms calibration was very encompassing and really thick and dimensional but I seemed to lack width. Again, the only thing I tried here was same 20-40ms calibration just minus the rear firing tweet. So, I re-did it this time with the suggested 30-50ms calibration and stage width was as big as my room, still had crazy depth, and just bigger. So, according to my surround reverb graphs I get that efficiency peak around 90ms and measure almost 5ft from listening position with mains almost 13ft. So my fellow room correction smart ones, can my rear firing tweet that I no longer use have made that much of a difference with all else the same? :nerd:


Brian in Bakersfield...


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

MCACC is very sensitive to any changes in speaker position and presumably any changes in the number of drivers..
Even moving the surrounds a few inches forward or back can change things quite dramatically..particularly in respect of reverberation settings..
I presume the bi-polar's you're speaking about are the surrounds? That being the case, How close to the back wall are the surrounds? Obviously if they are fairly close then removing the rear firing tweeter is going to make a significant difference, which MCACC will pick up..
I also have my delay set at 30-50ms. and found that to be the best setting..


----------



## hearingspecialist (Mar 15, 2010)

Thanks for your response, the rear firing matched tweets were on my front towers. With my Yamaha YPAO it seemed to work and gave a super deep soundstage but, with a more advanced calibration setup in the mcacc i could really see some things it was trying to correct and the difference after removing rear tweets was very clear and better with a more exact and correct 3D response graph. The clarity which was always awesome just got a whole lot better with still a very deep sound stage after removing them. I have over 20 hours of advanced MCACC time now and enjoy the parameters at my finger tips. I've consulted other Audio Engineers with my data from adv mcacc and my chosen calibration time is now the 0-20ms setting using the ProEQ per some book knowledge and also some critical listening sessions. I honestly could spend all day messing with it!


Brian in Bakersfield...


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

To use 0-20ms. you must have a very flat graph on the Reverb View, with virtually no slope at the beginning!.Is this what you're seeing?
Even though my slope is quite rapid and could easily use 10-20ms in compliance with MCACC recommendations, but I've found that I get better overall 3D type sound if I select the longer delay..30-50ms..
Of course all this depends on the size of your room and the acoustics of the room..

I know what you mean about messing with it all day! I've lost count the number of times I've tweaked with the settings..just to get that bit more out of the system!


----------



## hearingspecialist (Mar 15, 2010)

Yep its a rapid curve: 1K and 2K flatline at 10ms. 125hz and 16K at 20ms very specifically and the rest right close to 20ms and maybe a little after. It sounds very sharp, clear with surround effects being awesome and the 30-50ms did completely surround me with a very 3D experience. Just interesting how differently the width and depth can be messed with and still have surround signal strength.


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

hearingspecialist said:


> Yep its a rapid curve: 1K and 2K flatline at 10ms.


That is very good! My flat line doesn't begin until about 20ms., but all the frequencies are tightly bunched together..
What I found when using the shorter delay times was that the front sound (whilst being quite clear) didn't have much projection and the surrounds seemed more subdued..But of course each situation is different..


----------



## hearingspecialist (Mar 15, 2010)

I will probably re-set it for the next choice up on the scale and listen for a while. I just wish I could post a graph. Thanks for your interest and I know sometimes my excitement gets in the way and I may not always be clear. I have it set up also as THX but have to reduce the crossover from 80hz to 50hz because of my first standing wave of 74hz. We need to create an advanced mcacc support group :nerd:


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

hearingspecialist said:


> I have it set up also as THX but have to reduce the crossover from 80hz to 50hz because of my first standing wave of 74hz.


Likewise..I have THX selected on mine also, but have crossover at 80hz. My first standing wave is at about 45hz.!



> We need to create an advanced mcacc support group :nerd:


Yes..It has surprised me that there has been very few postings on MCACC here! Over on the unnamed forum there 75 pages on the subject! :scratch:


----------



## hearingspecialist (Mar 15, 2010)

45hz???? hmmm, my minds a wondering what kind of room it takes to read that. I'm trying to reverse engineer that in my head, i'm trying to figure why i need boost at 4K currently. Tomorrow morning I will be running it again with the expert version only and listen, I will have the house to myself for a few before I go to work. It's funny how I will tweak on it thinking its awesome then re-run auto mcacc with "keep sp" and it sounds just as great or better. Guess I'm not nailing it as much as I think but for me that's the fun.


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

The 45hz. standing wave is below the MCACC EQ range of adjustments and also below the acoustic absorbers ability to have any affect in the room..Hence the peak..
The second harmonic of 90hz. is still outside the EQ's range but does get some dampening from the absorbers..and the third harmonic is absorbed completely..giving a relatively flat response from about 60hz. on..



> i'm trying to figure why i need boost at 4K currently.


With my room set up I find I have to do the opposite..ie cut the 4K. level for the fronts, but I have to boost the 4K. level for the surrounds! :dontknow: :scratch:

One problem I'm having with MCACC is that it always sets my front speakers about 4dB too high and I have to check levels with an SPL metre every time I do a calibration ..


----------



## hearingspecialist (Mar 15, 2010)

Prof, I was playing today with the standing wave multi-point measurement and did 2 of the 3 spots right next to the listening position on either side and my standing waves are now as follows: 63hz, 74hz, and 96hz (before it was 74, 96, and 136hz i think). So doing all 3 positions made a dramatic quality difference in my lower response and I can explain it like listening to the lower octaves in digital vs. analog. The qualities are very different sounding and extremely defined and transformed once again the sound quality of the bass. In fact doing the 3 position standing wave measurement completely changed the sound of the 30-50ms pro eq settings as well as the 20-40ms settings. It really changed everything all over again. Man, should have done the 3 measurement locations from the start! I'm also thinking that things are breaking in well, drivers and receiver. Just seems to have loosened up and opened up. :scratch:

For those reading, this measurement is different from the multi listening location settings and deals with great detail the filters and Q used to correct standing waves in the room. :nerd:


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

Dr. Brian,

I did a 3 point measurement test awhile ago, with the mic placed in the left, centre and right seats..
It did make a significant difference to the sound overall..and particularly improved the sound for the left and right seats, but I didn't quite like the sound from the centre seat (where I sit) so I re ran just the centre point only again..

The 3 point measurement..for me..is worthwhile if you have people regularly sitting in the side seats..which I don't..

That's interesting that you took your measurements just a bit to the left and the right of your centre seat..I will have to try that myself..particularly since it changed your low end standing wave frequencies..

What I have found is that the placement of the mic. in the centre seat is very critical in respect of height and closeness to the back of the chair..
I can hear a difference in the reproduced sound from having the mic. a little forward from the back of the chair, to moving it slightly back closer to the back of the chair..
This changes the surround sound spread quite noticeably..That, along with the various delay adjustments makes for a lot of experimenting! 

At the moment I have the best sound yet! I set the mic. near the back of the seat and raised just above it..I also changed the delay to 40-60ms. This seems to give the smoothest sound field from fronts to surrounds in my room..
I'll be interested to see how the 3 point measurement sounds now, following your positioning..

At the same time of all this, I'm doing some tuning on the ports of my front speakers (now that they've loosened up)..trying different densities of materials in the ports..
What fun! At least it keeps me off the streets!! :bigsmile:


----------



## hearingspecialist (Mar 15, 2010)

I first made the mistake of not reading my manual lddude: because I didn't realize that the first measuring location is #2 spot, then 3, then listening location which makes total sense now. The last should be the main listening location, duh! I just am amazed at the difference with all else the same. My 30-50ms setting before 3point measurement was really thick and 3D but now the same 30-50ms is still thick but more deep and behind enclosures and more invisible. Effects from surrounds are still strong but now the soundstage is more deep than forward as before. All of this stuff is why I love and searched this product. I really stand firm with 2 technologies that cannot be argued by others, Full Frequency Phase Control and the multi point Standing Wave measuring. I have to fully agree and I too have messed with mic locations in relation to my ears. There are many variables at "ear" location and I have messed with mic angled slightly (very little) to going to extremes to make sure mic is flat at ear level/location. :nerd:

We seem to share some experiments, I have been messing with my fronts as well (TWW's tuned to low C) and have decoupled my top of the 2 woofers from the baffle and really stuffed with polyfill then, making sure bottom woofer is coupled to the thick baffle and re-arranged my ceiling tile placement piece for closer proximity to driver to more match internal placement in my dual sub setup. The net result was almost a 3-way sound using a 2-way crossover. I achieved more bass and removed all the polyfill from bottom woofer location too. The ceiling tile placement is also angled inside but vertical and the goal there is to control the impedance of that bottom driver to be more efficient in the lows. Crazy how ceiling tile placement for top "W" cleans the midrange being heavily stuffed, and the bottom "W" is acting more like a bass driver. Now I would like to try the fronts as "Large" with my subs at "Plus" now with all the lower octave cleaning and increased definition of a already great sound the 3 point measurement has provided.


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

A few set ups have found that setting speakers to LARGE and sub to PLUS has given the best results, whereas for most it's the SMALL setting with 80hz. crossover that seems to work the best..
SMALL or LARGE having no bearing of course on the actual size of the speakers..

I ran the multi point set up yesterday, with the mic. either side of the centre seat for positions 2 and 3..
The end result was very disappointing..:thumbsdown:
I checked the EQ after calibration and found that MCACC had set everything the opposite of what I had previously set!! 
The frequencies from 125-500hz. were all reduced in level ( quite significantly on some frequencies) and everything above was raised in level!! Go figure! :scratchhead:
Voices sounded terrible with over emphasis on sibilance and with no body to the overall mid range..
I consequently returned everything to my previous memory..


----------



## hearingspecialist (Mar 15, 2010)

I'll bring the pizza, looks like its gonna be a fun day of measuring! Interesting with the results and with your awesome room (my photos) our rooms are so way different. I'll be over in the morning...


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

Thanks Dr.Brian for the compliment on my room..

It's not a large room as you can see, but it's tuned to the best of my abilities and does a pretty good job.. 
With all the different size rooms and with all the inherent variations in acoustics, it's no wonder results can differ so much when tuning with MCACC!
To obtain reference levels across the fronts, I have my LCR levels at +2.5dB. and my Tripole surrounds (very inefficient speakers) at +6.5 dB.!!..That will give you some idea of how acoustically dead the room is..

Don't worry about bringing pizza..I make my own! See you tomorrow! :bigsmile:


----------



## RTS100x5 (Sep 12, 2009)

hearingspecialist said:


> After now close to 10 hours of tweaking (from getting it last Wed.) and playing with the pro eq and reverb 3d features I started to really explore the difference MCACC was providing when measuring my bi-polar high freq drivers. I noticed a little something on the 3d graph and started thinking maybe mcacc was really having a hayday with those highs. I will qualify: After constant calibrations and re-measuring using the 30-50ms vs. 20-40ms schemes my listening experiences were obvious but nothing drastic per se', but now when I removed the rear firing matched tweets the whole deal changed and high freqs were very different and measured better after viewing the eq sliders. The 20-40ms calibration was very encompassing and really thick and dimensional but I seemed to lack width. Again, the only thing I tried here was same 20-40ms calibration just minus the rear firing tweet. So, I re-did it this time with the suggested 30-50ms calibration and stage width was as big as my room, still had crazy depth, and just bigger. So, according to my surround reverb graphs I get that efficiency peak around 90ms and measure almost 5ft from listening position with mains almost 13ft. So my fellow room correction smart ones, can my rear firing tweet that I no longer use have made that much of a difference with all else the same? :nerd:
> 
> 
> Brian in Bakersfield...


Have you tried rewiring your surrounds in a DIPOLE configuration ?


----------



## hearingspecialist (Mar 15, 2010)

No, because of the way they are placed in the room. But, I have taken my "Front Alignment" calibration moved it to another saved program and copied the "All Channel Adjust" which is a "Flat" setting and applied to my side surrounds. So, I have the unique audio signature of my mains with a flat response for the side surrounds. With careful adjustment of the Trim controls, I think just 1db, I now have a super heightened sound field and the resolution is crazy solid. I'm still using the 40-60ms setting and all other measurements were left alone i.e, distance, levels, full freq phase control.


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

I've been doing some more tweaking of late and it just showed me that using the different modes can change how the system performs..
I've been using "All CH. Adjust" for all of my tweaking, just about since I first bought the unit..I did initially try all three modes but preferred the all ch.adjust setting..as a lot of people do..

The other night I decided to run "Symmetry" again to see what difference there is between the two..
I started from scratch using Full Auto to start, then "Keep SP Settings followed by "Auto"..I set EQ Pro. to 40-60 ms. and then checked my EQ bands..
The first thing I noticed was that 125hz. had been lowered several dB. over the All CH. Adjust setting.. Other frequencies looked to be about the same except for the surrounds which MCACC always lowers the 4Khz. band to ridiculous levels, so I put them up a bit..

I decided to try it how MCACC had set the EQ..without making any further adjustments..
The overall frequency range was very smooth with good voice definition in the centre channel..but two things stood out immediately..The mid to upper bass definition was much improved and with even better lower extension than All CH.Adjust..and the front to side surround projections were very precise..particularly with crowd scenes, which were more enveloping than previous..

Looks like I'll be staying with Symmetry for awhile! :T


----------



## hearingspecialist (Mar 15, 2010)

I also like the Symmetry and the "thinking" behind it. In comparing eq levels for me the symmetry was like a "boosted" all channel adjust. It does provide a very dynamic sound and I too also enjoy the more aggressive surround effects it provides. I have all 4 programs using the 40-60ms setup. I still really enjoy re-doing everything using the Expert setup, just seems to be pretty smart in itself, but do notice a lack of high freq resolution in comparison to the Pro. I am constantly re-running while trying something different, fun, fun, fun!


----------



## RTS100x5 (Sep 12, 2009)

Is there a microphone other than the original that can possibly give better results?


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

hearingspecialist said:


> I also like the Symmetry and the "thinking" behind it. In comparing eq levels for me the symmetry was like a "boosted" all channel adjust. It does provide a very dynamic sound and I too also enjoy the more aggressive surround effects it provides. I have all 4 programs using the 40-60ms setup. I still really enjoy re-doing everything using the Expert setup, just seems to be pretty smart in itself, but do notice a lack of high freq resolution in comparison to the Pro. I am constantly re-running while trying something different, fun, fun, fun!


That's the thing I like about MCACC..you can tailor the sound to suit your own listening preferences and counteract any acoustic anomalies at the same time.. 
The thing I don't like about is that it doesn't do any equalisation for the bass frequencies..If it did that as well, it would be perfect..

To that end, I have just recently ordered the Anti-Mode 8033C equaliser..This will finally get the whole frequency range tuned..right down to 16hz.! :T


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

Double post.


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

RTS100x5 said:


> Is there a microphone other than the original that can possibly give better results?


I doubt a better quality mic. would give better results, as the Pioneer mic. is specifically made for their receivers..
I have read a number of posts where it has been stated that you should use the Pio. mic which has been supplied for a specific receiver..Others have said that you can use the same mic. for any of their receivers!! :scratch:.
I think the latter is the truer statement, because I'm not even using a Pio. mic. to do my adjustments!  My mic. got damaged some time ago and not being able to find a replacement at the time, I connected up my Yamaha mic. and it worked fine..It set everything just the same as the Pioneer. mic. did..:T


----------



## steve.steady (Apr 8, 2011)

I wondered how did you get on with these?

I have a couple of these for my subs (Tapped horns in a 2 channel) and have found they work pretty well.




Prof. said:


> That's the thing I like about MCACC..you can tailor the sound to suit your own listening preferences and counteract any acoustic anomalies at the same time..
> The thing I don't like about is that it doesn't do any equalisation for the bass frequencies..If it did that as well, it would be perfect..
> 
> To that end, I have just recently ordered the Anti-Mode 8033C equaliser..This will finally get the whole frequency range tuned..right down to 16hz.! :T


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

I was a little disappointed with the Anti-Mode unit..
One thing I didn't like about it was that each time you run the EQ, you have to turn down the volume on the sub..Then after the tuning is done, re-calibrate the volume level again using the SPL meter..

It did help to give a slightly smoother bass response, but it certainly didn't give any more emphasis to the very low frequencies..which is what I hoped it would..

Overall the improvements were subtle in my room and I guess if the room has limited peaks and nulls, then there probably won't be a lot of improvement..If your room is not acoustically tuned, then there will most likely be bigger improvements..


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Seems I am missing out on some real fun. I've only ever used the single point measurement technique and never connected a PC to the AVR. MCACC make difference to the system (switching between pure direct and standard allows one to hear this difference, though it seems to be more of HF clarity) and after reading this, I want to get more out of this. Do I really need to dig out the manual or is there an online tutorial you guys would recommend. I am guessing the "unnamed forum with 70+ pages is that one starting with A, yet I seem to be having an issue locating this thread. Any suggestions or pointers would be appreciated.


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

OK I think I found the thread, but most of the links given me 404 error  Looks like I am off to dig up the book.


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

Mark.. I've just checked it out and there are now 94 pages and I didn't have any trouble loading it..
It's really too much reading to start from the beginning, so apart from reading the MCACC manual..any questions you need to know would be best served here..


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

OK have found a PDF of the manual and beginning research. Will update progress.


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

Which model Pio. do you have?


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Hi Proff,

My AVR is the Pioneer VSX-1018 THX Select 2 Plus. I've been running X-Curve on -3dB and it seems that I should have it on 0.0 or -0.5dB based on room area(?) :coocoo: Should this not be room volume, because room volume is greatly affected by the height of a ceiling. If two rooms had the same square foot floor space but different ceiling heights, their volume would be different. 

My room is about 950 cubic feet. I still have an email I received from Professor Tom Holman on the topic (when I emailed him back in 2000) about modifying the curve for larger or smaller rooms. I'll quote part of his reply (from 17/10/2000) which I have kept in his book (Surround Sound 5.1 Up And Running" for nostalgia:


> You have probably already done the best you can do. The exact curve depends on direct/reflected/reverberant ratios caused by your combination of loudspeakers and room acoustics. We did find that the re-eq curve, which is the same in Ultra and Select by the way, does seem to work from <1000 to >3000 cu. ft., although the exact limits were not studied.


I take 'we' is in reference to himself and the two other sound engineers that created the Home THX audio system when he worked for LucasFilm THX. Lucasfilm later sold the THX division in the late 1990's and Tom Holman went off and created TMH Labs. 

Given I am just 50 cu. ft. short of the 1000cu.ft., I ran with -3dB based on the above info and what I understand about THX. So the question on my mind right now is does the THX Re-EQ (aka SMPTE 202X-Curve) add to the X-Curve when THX processing is applied or is this adjustable X-Curve the actual THX re-eq curve? :dontknow: THX suggested I leave it on when I queried them on Facebook about it reducing the amount of slope for lower listening levels. I guess I now need to ask them about room volumes and if it affecting the THX processing or not. 

So if MCACC stands for Multi Chanel Acoustic Calibration System, why is the name not MCACS? :scratch:

Hopefully tonight I will go into the set up menu and see if I can take measurements from three points as described in the manual.


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Ok after a reading the manual and a bit of messing around, I finally got the multi point measurements to work and I must say, I'm impressed. I thought this sounded good before, but wow, this is something special indeed. I am waiting for the response from THX regarding the X-Curve and for right now, it is on -0.5dB/oct and it sounds better than at -3dB/oct.


----------



## steve.steady (Apr 8, 2011)

Here is what Anti-mode did for my tapped horn 2.4m tall subs.

Before,



After,


Just focus on the lowest 20 - 150Hz. 

Hearing it corrected I had big problems on 31Hz 5 string sub bass pieces booming and then suck out a big higher up the register. All room related - they modelled and measure flatter near mouth - I am sure in free air they would measure how they modelled in Hornresp...

Overall good and easy to pop it off / lift 15-25Hz should I wish - not really needed with these babies.


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

Mark Techer said:


> My AVR is the Pioneer VSX-1018 THX Select 2 Plus. I've been running X-Curve on -3dB and it seems that I should have it on 0.0 or -0.5dB based on room area(?) :coocoo:


I originally set my X-Curve to -0.5dB. and ran with that for some time..I recently set it back 0dB and it lifted some of the highs quite noticeably..Since then I've made my adjustments for the highs in the EQ with much better results..



> Should this not be room volume, because room volume is greatly affected by the height of a ceiling. If two rooms had the same square foot floor space but different ceiling heights, their volume would be different.


The acoustics of the room come into this equation as well as volume.. 



> Given I am just 50 cu. ft. short of the 1000cu.ft., I ran with -3dB based on the above info and what I understand about THX. So the question on my mind right now is does the THX Re-EQ (aka SMPTE 202X-Curve) add to the X-Curve when THX processing is applied or is this adjustable X-Curve the actual THX re-eq curve? :dontknow:


As far as I'm aware, the X-Curve is separate from the THX processing and is still operational whether THX is selected in the MCACC menu or not..



> So if MCACC stands for Multi Chanel Acoustic Calibration System, why is the name not MCACS? :scratch:


Actually MCACC stands for Multi Channel Acoustic Calibration and Control..


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

Mark Techer said:


> Ok after a reading the manual and a bit of messing around, I finally got the multi point measurements to work and I must say, I'm impressed. I thought this sounded good before, but wow, this is something special indeed.


The Multi Point Calibration is good if you have people sitting close to the screen but off centre..
I personally preferred the Single Point Calibration in my system as it gave more body to the sound..

I should point out (if you're not already aware) that microphone position.. when you do your calibrations..is extremely critical..Moving the mic. slightly back, down, up or from side to side by just a few inches will make a big difference to the final calibration..
It needs to be positioned as close as possible to where your head would be..Placing it on a tripod on your chair does not put it in the right position and if you put the tripod behind the chair, it's still not in the right position!
I place mine on top of the back of the chair and I find this gives me the best results..particularly for surround sound..



> I am waiting for the response from THX regarding the X-Curve and for right now, it is on -0.5dB/oct and it sounds better than at -3dB/oct.


Mark..I think you'll find that it's better to set it to 0 and make your high frequency cuts in the EQ..I found it gives me more control that way..


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

steve.steady said:


> Here is what Anti-mode did for my tapped horn 2.4m tall subs.
> 
> Before,
> 
> ...


That is a nice improvement with the Anti-Mode..:T


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Prof. said:


> The Multi Point Calibration is good if you have people sitting close to the screen but off centre..


Which I do  



> I personally preferred the Single Point Calibration in my system as it gave more body to the sound..


I was using this and the challenge is sitting front row (closer to the screen) meant the surrounds were probably not loud enough and in the back row, they were a touch too loud. 



> I should point out (if you're not already aware) that microphone position.. when you do your calibrations..is extremely critical..Moving the mic. slightly back, down, up or from side to side by just a few inches will make a big difference to the final calibration..


Yeah I ran the MCACC about 8 times last night and compared the data from the last two saves, so got a glimpse of that.


> It needs to be positioned as close as possible to where your head would be..Placing it on a tripod on your chair does not put it in the right position and if you put the tripod behind the chair, it's still not in the right position!


I always bias the legs to move the pole back to where my head would be.






> Mark..I think you'll find that it's better to set it to 0 and make your high frequency cuts in the EQ..I found it gives me more control that way..


Right now it is on -0.5dB and it sound good. More playing in the coming days.

Where do I get the PC program from?


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

> Where do I get the PC program from?


Here..
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/P...ll/Detailed+Product+Information/A+V+Receivers

I think you'll find that any of the VSX software will give you what you need..


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Prof. said:


> Here..
> http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/P...ll/Detailed+Product+Information/A+V+Receivers
> 
> I think you'll find that any of the VSX software will give you what you need..


Nothing on VSX1018AH-K, but VSX94TXH had PC software. 

I am installing it now, but still need to work out how to attach the PC to the AVR. I skimmed over the manual once again and didn't find anything :help:


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

OK just when I thought I had everything sorted, the message on the window reads "Command Error Occurred, Please try (you have no idea how much I dislike the word "try") again. Illegal data size."

This is regardless if I select all three or just one setting. 

Any suggestions?


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

Sorry Mark..I've never tried to connect the PC to the AVR!..If there's a USB port on the AVR (and I don't think my model has one) I would have thought that it would be a straight forward process..
Maybe someone else can chime in if they know about this..


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Prof. said:


> Sorry Mark..I've never tried to connect the PC to the AVR!..If there's a USB port on the AVR (and I don't think my model has one) I would have thought that it would be a straight forward process..
> Maybe someone else can chime in if they know about this..


Hi Prof,

There is actually an RS232 on the back panel of the 1018 (AU model) which is not shown on the image of the US version. The US version also does not seem to THX certified either. 

The lead cost about $90 with the gender bender and I still had to mod it because of the way the securing screws are set up. I originally bought the lead for my Solar system to out put the data to the PC, but the plug would not physically fit in the hole around the socket on the Inverter.


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

I had forgotten about the RS232 connection..It's been a long time since I've seen the back of my receiver! :R
What is the advantage of the PC/AVR interface? Is it that you can program changes to MCACC on your PC and then load them to the AVR..much like the Harmony remote system..or are there other benefits as well?
This is one area I've never really looked into..:dontknow:


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Prof. said:


> What is the advantage of the PC/AVR interface? Is it that you can program changes to MCACC on your PC and then load them to the AVR..much like the Harmony remote system..or are there other benefits as well?


Its primary function is to export the MCACC data, but I guess it could also be used to up FW on the AVR. The Pioneer AVRs have never seemed to have "DTS bomb" like Onkyo, so like you, I never bothered prior to this either. 

Apparently the files are CSV Excel files, so I am wondering if I was to create a spread sheet with the data from the OSD, can I manually create the room plots using the software to generate the charts?


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

I can't see why not..I think others (at A) have done the same thing..


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

I'll be starting a new thread shortly on the pro's and Con's of setting your speakers to "SMALL" or "LARGE"..
I'll be interested to hear your comments..


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Prof. said:


> I can't see why not..I think others (at A) have done the same thing..


So where to start? The graphs appear to be amplitude Vs frequency. 



Prof. said:


> I'll be starting a new thread shortly on the pro's and Con's of setting your speakers to "SMALL" or "LARGE"..
> I'll be interested to hear your comments..


I am probably even biased to Bass Managed Systems as I've had HT (combining Video and Audio) since about 1988. So from the beginning, I've used a SUB/SAT system, though in the early days, the SW was passive. I went Surround for the first time in 1992 and simply added a third identical centre speaker to the stereo pair I already had. Here we are in 2012, I am on my 6th set of speakers and I still have identical LCRs and they are still Sub/Sat that require the BM to be set to SMALL.


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

Mark Techer said:


> I am probably even biased to Bass Managed Systems as I've had HT (combining Video and Audio) since about 1988. So from the beginning, I've used a SUB/SAT system, though in the early days, the SW was passive. I went Surround for the first time in 1992 and simply added a third identical centre speaker to the stereo pair I already had. Here we are in 2012, I am on my 6th set of speakers and I still have identical LCRs and they are still Sub/Sat that require the BM to be set to SMALL.


The SMALL or LARGE has nothing to do with the physical size of the speakers..as I will explain in the thread..


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Prof. said:


> The SMALL or LARGE has nothing to do with the physical size of the speakers..as I will explain in the thread..


All my speakers are 400mm (16") tall and all have 2x VIFA 6.5" drivers. The LCRs have 3 Vifa "Super Tweeters" in a vertical line beside the 2 woofers and the surrounds (use 2 tweeters not 3) are bipolar with one W and T per side. They whole system is still bass managed because it works better than if I attempted to run a full range system + LFE. 

I am looking at the possibility of running a single 10" woofer and horn loaded tweeter for LCR and maybe an open back version (true dipole) for the surrounds. Even if (when) I do this, the system will still be bass managed. 

I have a friend that runs VAF Research's flag ship speakers ($7K each) and has three for LCR and they too (after allot of convincing) are running on SMALL setting on the processor. Bass Management is something every system should use, yet for some reason, people think that a single passive speaker will deliver the dynamic range and frequency response needed for high SPL playback of film sound.


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

And so the debate continues! :bigsmile:



Mark Techer said:


> All my speakers are 400mm (16") tall and all have 2x VIFA 6.5" drivers. The LCRs have 3 Vifa "Super Tweeters" in a vertical line beside the 2 woofers and the surrounds (use 2 tweeters not 3) are bipolar with one W and T per side. They whole system is still bass managed because it works better than if I attempted to run a full range system + LFE.


Mark..Have you ever tried setting MCACC front speakers to LARGE..and if so what was the results?


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Prof. said:


> And so the debate continues! :bigsmile:


So are you an avocate of the "large" setting?




> Mark..Have you ever tried setting MCACC front speakers to LARGE..and if so what was the results?


There is no point. The speakers were designed to have an F3 at 79Hz to work with the 80Hz crossover. They sound the same (with subs turned off) regardless.


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

Mark Techer said:


> So are you an avocate of the "large" setting?


Up until about a week ago I was an advocate for SMALL!!


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Prof. said:


> Up until about a week ago I was an advocate for SMALL!!


My AVR sets the speakers to large every time I run MCACC and I have to turn them back to small. 

What made you change to the dark side? :devil:


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Time to start that new thread I think


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

Mark Techer said:


> My AVR sets the speakers to large every time I run MCACC and I have to turn them back to small.


So did mine!..Which made me wonder why it did this.. 



> What made you change to the dark side? :devil:


LOL!..I believe I've turned to the light side!! :bigsmile:


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

I'm typing this offline..I'm about 3/4 the way through..


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Prof. said:


> So did mine!..Which made me wonder why it did this..


Let me suggest that if your speakers do play flat below say 80Hz, then the system thinks that they are capable of deep bass response. 

What is the EQ filters - graphic or parametric? 

A proper graphic EQ (used in flim sound) would have enough bands to deliver 3 bands per octave [30 frequencies over the 10 octaves = 1/3rd/oct EQ]. Yet these EQ systems [both MCACC and Audessy] have 5 or 9 bands (max). Where does the EQ start? 63Hz? or 125Hz. Something has to give when your starting point is already almost 2 octaves out from 20Hz.

Don't get me wrong. MCACC is better than not having any room correction, but I do think it has its limitations.


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

It definitely does have limitations..In particular, no EQ for bass frequencies..But there are also another number of limitations, one of which is that if you are looking at a one of the memory's previously set, it doesn't show you what room delay you have chosen for that memory!

The EQ starts at 63Hz. when you have selected LARGE..If the speakers are set to SMALL, then the 63Hz. setting is greyed out..

The EQ filters is something I've never bothered with..Not much information is given about them and quite frankly I'm not even sure why they bothered to put them into MCACC..It seems that most people don't even try to adjust them..and just let MCACC set them..


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Prof. said:


> It seems that most people don't even try to adjust them..and just let MCACC set them..


See now I am at a loss. The idea of using MCACC with the microphone is to take out the "guess work" of the complex interaction between you room and the loud speakers. I found how to make manual adjustments, but I also read that you can re-measure(?) after making a manual adjustment. If so, cool. If not, and you are just making the adjustment based on what you hear, then what is the point? How do you know if it is an improvement or not? Sure it might "sound good" but is it? I saw you new thread and you already have some replies.


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

I don't think you can re-measure because everytime you run AUTO..It returns settings to the previous AUTO run.(.unless you've changed the position of speakers ,sub, mic.etc.) but I may be wrong..It's been awhile since I've run AUTO after manual adjustments..


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Prof. said:


> I don't think you can re-measure because everytime you run AUTO..It returns settings to the previous AUTO run.(.unless you've changed the position of speakers ,sub, mic.etc.) but I may be wrong..It's been awhile since I've run AUTO after manual adjustments..


And that's my point. MCACC sets it as close to flat as it can and you change something based on what you think you hear as being correct. How do you know what is correct and what is not? This is no different to someone attempting grey scale calibrations without a colorimeter. How does someone know what D6500K looks like? Imagine driving a car without a working speedometer or tachometer? How would you know if you were doing the speed limit or not?. There is a reason we use and rely on instrumentation.

This is my 3RD Pioneer AVR, and 2nd THX certified model, but first to have auto calibration MCACC. The earlier VSX1011 has a manual MCACC and did not offer this for the front Left and Right. Go figure. I simply refused to use it based on the facts that I've stated above and because it didn't offer control over the front L and R. I mean, how dumb is that? Your room sounds OK and MCACC can improve things, but for the main L and R speakers :scratch:


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

Quite frankly Mark..I don't have a lot of faith in what MCACC sets!..I use it more as a starting point than a final calibration..considering it sets ALL my speaker levels way above the recognised 75dB.level, every time I run MCACC..
It also drops the 4K. level significantly in my surrounds which leaves a big hole in surround sounds..
MCACC also produces a very bright sound with excessive highs in LCR speakers..which exaggerates sibilance..

Every time I run MCACC I have to adjust settings in the EQ..
It does set good time delays between fronts and surrounds with the default setting..and speaker distances a fairly close when you run the distance check signal..

Personally I prefer to go by what sounds right to me, rather than just accept what MCACC calibrates..


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

OK, each to their own. I know it makes a positive difference in my room now and it calmed down the aggressive reverb in the unit I lived in before I built my treated room.


----------



## hearingspecialist (Mar 15, 2010)

Been gone for a while and its nice to see a post I started still active. How is everyone??? As discussed earlier on page 6 of the "no sub eq" part of the advanced mcacc setup, I dealt with this by lining my back wall of each sub with a piece of ceiling tile used as aperiodic membrane to equalize the impedance of each to aid in controlling them. Seems to work very well with each seperate sub also including 40 plus pounds of non-drying clay lining the walls.


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

hearingspecialist said:


> Been gone for a while and its nice to see a post I started still active. How is everyone??? As discussed earlier on page 6 of the "no sub eq" part of the advanced mcacc setup, I dealt with this by lining my back wall of each sub with a piece of ceiling tile used as aperiodic membrane to equalize the impedance of each to aid in controlling them. Seems to work very well with each seperate sub also including 40 plus pounds of non-drying clay lining the walls.


So a DIY sub? Did you use an impedance correction circuit as well? 
[X value cap in series with Y value resister which then goes in parallel with the woofer] It is hard to believe that some as simple as this could make such a huge difference.


----------

