# The best Audyssey test... single mic test



## Talley

So far...

a single test... with me at the MLP... with the audyssey mic placed on top my head... (yes, like a stupid little horn coming out the top of my head)...

has produced the best results for me. I find the results to be perfect. It's when you add more than that single test I hate the results.

Of course... this is no sub. I did this for music since in direct mode the SVS Ultras are too much bass. 1/3 smoothing for ease of seeing the "curve" change.


----------



## tonyvdb

Talley, what mic are you using for your REW measurement? something is off with what your getting for results. My understanding is if you have readings above 10kHz that hot your ears must be bleeding. Normally they should roll off the higher you get.
EDIT: the term roll off is not the correct word to use but its more a slope down about 10 or so db


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Are the traces “before” and “after?” And if so, which trace is which? Traces with more of a visible contrast - say, red and green - would make them easier to follow. 

When you say you don’t like the results with more than one test, are you referring to response or imaging?

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## Talley

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Are the traces “before” and “after?” And if so, which trace is which? Traces with more of a visible contrast - say, red and green - would make them easier to follow.
> 
> When you say you don’t like the results with more than one test, are you referring to response or imaging?
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


ya sorry, not sure how to change the color yet, haven't seen that option. the color that shows the big bloat in the low end where the bass is 10+ higher than the rest is the before... audyssey was able to tame the low end back a bit to where it sounds alot better.

The response mainly. Imaging is better too but not as much as the response. Before the bass was boomy/bloated type of thing and now it's very articulate and accurate. Thats my impression at least.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Thanks for the info. I was interested because AudiocRaver has indicated that minimizing the number and spacing of mic locations results in improved imaging, compared to spreading them all over the room. His most recent evaluation used a single location and couldn't tell a difference in imaging with or without Audyssey or Dirac (you've seen it, I've seen your posts on the thread).

I’ve never done it, but it looks like the trace colors can be changed in Preferences window, “View” tab.

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## Lumen

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Thanks for the info. I was interested because AudiocRaver has indicated that minimizing the number and spacing of mic locations results in improved imaging, compared to spreading them all over the room. His most recent evaluation used a single location and couldn't tell a difference in imaging with or without Audyssey or Dirac....


I have an XMC-1 with Dirac, but only a single LP in my small HT room . In trying to keep with the user manual, I spread my initial mic positions over the whole chair. The result was not pretty--congested and confused imaging, glaring mid-range, anemic bass. I started tightening up the pattern during the next three tries thinking that data points on the plane of the armrest or close to the seat cushion were irrelevant. 

Sure enough, the sound field gelled when I shrunk the mic pattern down in close proximity to an imaginary head at the LP. Images came into focus, dialog improved immensely, and rear surround effects now played a role. In a nutshell, I felt much more immersed in the movie experience. Not a testimonial to single-mic placement, but I'd wager extrapolation would take SQ to the next level.


----------



## Talley

BlueRockinLou said:


> I have an XMC-1 with Dirac, but only a single LP in my small HT room . In trying to keep with the user manual, I spread my initial mic positions over the whole chair. The result was not pretty--congested and confused imaging, glaring mid-range, anemic bass. I started tightening up the pattern during the next three tries thinking that data points on the plane of the armrest or close to the seat cushion were irrelevant.
> 
> Sure enough, the sound field gelled when I shrunk the mic pattern down in close proximity to an imaginary head at the LP. Images came into focus, dialog improved immensely, and rear surround effects now played a role. In a nutshell, I felt much more immersed in the movie experience. Not a testimonial to single-mic placement, but I'd wager extrapolation would take SQ to the next level.


You touched on a perfect word. Before spreading over a 6' area across the couch doing all 8 points the bass sounded "anemic" and I notice the imaging is improved with only a single test. This is again my opinion based on what I'm hearing in my room and my results of course

Leaving to a single position the bass sounds perfect.

This is my results tonight playing with the sub integration. I had adjusted the volume on one but bumped the sub up a tad to kinda create a house curve of my own. Either sounds very similar. Gonna play around a bit more in the next few days but this after a SINGLE mic audyssey test w/ the sub


----------



## Talley

and I figured out how to change the colors too.


----------



## atledreier

Audyssey themselves suggest a 1' - 2' max spacing for a focused sweetspot. I'm always clustering as many measurements as i can within a 1'6" radius "disc" at ear height, with the tightest grouping around the ears average position. The most important measurement is the very first one, this must be accurately centered for best focus. I've very rarely got a problem with focus or imaging with this method. A silent room (no AC, computers or people) and good mic stand is essential and cheap.


----------



## jb5200

I've noticed in the manual of the Marantz AV7702 the mic positions for Audyssey are really close together vs. in the 8801 they are spread out much more, are they now finding out this produces better results?

What do you do if you have a larger room and want the imaging and performance for a larger area? Do you still suggest using the close mic positions/only 1 mic position?


----------



## AudiocRaver

A few thoughts:

The single mic point cal method will be favored more by soundstage & imaging (SS&I) perfection chasers. A small sweet spot is a given.

Many will be satisfied with somewhat less focus and will enjoy the greater flexibility of a bigger sweet spot, calling for a more spread-out multi-point mic pattern.

It is simply a matter of available options/tradeoffs and personal preference.

Room size does not seem to be a significant factor, other than allowing the opportunity for SS&I to be much more diffused by using an even more spread out mic pattern.

The Denon AVR-X5200 on-screen instructions for Audyssey setup say to keep all mic positions within 2 feet of the critical #1 mic position. Do not know if this is part of a trend or not, or what other manufacturers are saying.

"What manufacturers suggest" gives an interesting starting point relative to this subject, but in my opinion can be far from definitive. "SS&I" and its creation, not being directly measurable, is a creature that few manufacturers seem to be willing to address directly. Understandably so.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

jb5200 said:


> What do you do if you have a larger room and want the imaging and performance for a larger area?


It should be a given that imaging over a wide area is impossible to achieve anyway, due to basic physics, even with no room correction. As Wayne’s work has shown (if I understand it correctly), improved frequency response can be realized over a wide area with DRC, but the penalty is usually bad imaging at the main LP.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## tonyvdb

Any thoughts on my original question guys? the graph Talley posted shows the highs flat out to 20kHz it is my understanding that thats going to be very harsh on the ears particularly at those levels at the listening position? Should there not be gradual slope down from about 10kHz


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Probably a preference at least partially based on age. Middle-aged folks like me probably need it flat out to the end, or even boosted somewhat. People in their 20s, not so much. 

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## Talley

tonyvdb said:


> Any thoughts on my original question guys? the graph Talley posted shows the highs flat out to 20kHz it is my understanding that thats going to be very harsh on the ears particularly at those levels at the listening position? Should there not be gradual slope down from about 10kHz


woa woa woa.... 

everyone here has always said that you want a flat response and not a "perceived flat response" which would be more of a slope down since we perceive lower frequencies as being lower and the higher as being louder.

My graph above is pushing a more than radical 35° of toe on the Ultras. Even Sonnie told me not to toe these much as they will become brighter.

My verdict is I have them toed in just a bit much. I really like how focused the vocals are right now but I lost a bit of SS&I compared to when I had them at 20° I'm gonna push them back to around 27-28° and see if thats more of a middle ground. 

Toe'd in they are brighter... but the "space" of the recording really comes out you get a very good ambience with a less far left/right imaging. The sound stage shrunk but the ambience grew. I like the ambience and the vocals are awesome. 

I'll push them back some and retest. Are they harsh?... no. are they bright?... simbilance is vibrant is how I would describe it.

The low end is nice. I wish I could put a more of a curve on it but audyssey won't allow that. I can bump the sub up but it looks like a plateau rising from 80hz down.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Talley said:


> woa woa woa....
> 
> everyone here has always said that you want a flat response and not a "perceived flat response" which would be more of a slope down since we perceive lower frequencies as being lower and the higher as being louder.


The opposite, actually. Kal Rubinson is the only regular here I know of that regularly recommends true flat response.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Talley

and by my looking it's down about 7db from 800hz anyway at 20k. it does move down. You can see it easier when you apply more smoothing

I've attached the file so you can look at it.


----------



## Talley

And here was the very next test where I bumped the sub up by 2db to kinda give me a better curve.

Is this better for you tony?


----------



## tonyvdb

I wouldn't complain about your room response. Its a nice graph. I just know that in my room if I have the highs that high its too much and becomes tiring at or near reference level . I have about a 5db gradual drop starting at 12kHz out to 20kHz. My EVs have an attenuation control in 3db steps on the highs.


----------



## Talley

tonyvdb said:


> I wouldn't complain about your room response. Its a nice graph. I just know that in my room if I have the highs that high its too much and becomes tiring at or near reference level . I have about a 5db gradual drop starting at 12kHz out to 20kHz. My EVs have an attenuation control in 3db steps on the highs.



Gotcha. Ya I've had some audyssey tests come out like that and then sometimes it's flat. I wish it had some more consistency but at the same time this is when I was doing 8 mic positions too.

What I haven't done is a 8 position cluster around a 2' area. I've always spread out over 6' and I DO NOT like the results on that.

I'll try to do a 4-8 mic maybe even tighter around a 16" cube around the head and see if I can get better results.

Will try tonight and post up tomorrow.


----------



## tonyvdb

if I remember right your seating position is against the rear wall right? thats going to mess with readings no matter what you do because of reflection. Remember your ears are not dead center, and you have two of them so taking only one reading is not going to be ideal because even moving your head will take it out of the perceived sweet spot.


----------



## Talley

my MLP is 3.5' off the back wall and I have a 2x4 absorption panel behind my head since I am close.


----------



## atledreier

I've never got great results with Audyssey with a wide spread. Also, as Audyssey have noted on many occations, the manuals are written by the manufacturer, even for the Audyssey sections. That's why the recommendations vary a little. Also, Audyssey report the -3dB point of each channel to the processor software and that is why you sometimes get conflicting crossover settings.

Audyssey themselves recommend a relatively tight grouping in a flat plane centered on the main listening position.


----------



## Talley

atledreier said:


> I've never got great results with Audyssey with a wide spread. Also, as Audyssey have noted on many occations, the manuals are written by the manufacturer, even for the Audyssey sections. That's why the recommendations vary a little. Also, Audyssey report the -3dB point of each channel to the processor software and that is why you sometimes get conflicting crossover settings.
> 
> Audyssey themselves recommend a relatively tight grouping in a flat plane centered on the main listening position.


I've never heard about keeping it in a flat plane before.


----------



## atledreier

Chris from Audyssey usually recommended keeping hte measurements at ear height due to dispersion patterns.


----------



## Talley

atledreier said:


> Chris from Audyssey usually recommended keeping hte measurements at ear height due to dispersion patterns.


Well back to the drawing board then.

I'll retest and keep the pattern within a 16" cube on the same plane vertically. 

Something like this then: (when looking from above)


----------



## atledreier

Yep, that's pretty much exactly what Chris from Audyssey recommended. As long as the rear-most measurements don't get too close to a wall.


----------



## willis7469

Talley said:


> I've never heard about keeping it in a flat plane before.


 not sure I recall that specifically either, but I've never even thought about changing the height. I think the recommendation for measuring at ear height covers that. I've seen other conversations here about measurement patterns, and I think Sonnie (sorry if it was not), does a single point measurement. That's what I did the last time. I'm the only one who cares about the sweet spot, so... I also place a blanket over my leather couch for measuring, and critical listening. Something I DO know Sonnie does.


----------



## primetimeguy

This is an interesting thread. In my previous 5 years or so with Audyssey in multiple receivers I have always used the full number of measurements but kept them within an 18" diameter circle. Today I replaced a TV and moved my center channel a few inches so thought I'd re-run Audyssey with just the single point (actually 3 measurements without moving the mic). Not sure how to explain it, and I suppose it could be placebo, but it does sound better. In the past it was seemed pretty good but just not quite right. This single position measurement seems to have given me the last little extra I was missing...just not exactly sure what that is.


----------



## Talley

I'm just saying... put the mic on top of your head while sitting in the MLP. Do a single test.

and report the results. It's fool proof. Your head, the mic is on top, in the center. Done.

Another point is... it's capturing the reflections off your legs, feet, arms, hands... etc. It's real testing done while your sitting there.

Try it.


----------



## willis7469

Talley said:


> I'm just saying... put the mic on top of your head while sitting in the MLP. Do a single test. and report the results. It's fool proof. Your head, the mic is on top, in the center. Done. Another point is... it's capturing the reflections off your legs, feet, arms, hands... etc. It's real testing done while your sitting there. Try it.


 This does sound interesting, and even makes some sense. My reservation is the mic picking up the creaking of your fingers or any subtle shifting of the hair if the mic moves a little. Just sayin. Maybe there's nothing to that?


----------



## willis7469

primetimeguy said:


> This single position measurement seems to have given me the last little extra I was missing...just not exactly sure what that is.


 I'm not sure either, but I agree. I just seems more right-er. Lol. In my case, its just tighter and cleaner. That's how I describe it. Glad it worked!


----------



## AudiocRaver

Talley:

I like your approach, taking the body into account. Now if there was a way to just remove the head and... wait a minute, there could be a downside to that method.

If I understand correctly, your seat back is lower, like shoulder height or below? If so, top of head might work just as well as ear level, because no major dip from the seat back reflection - it can be BIG with a high chair back, 10 dB or more.

Something else you might try:
Use soft blankets over pillows to simulate the body, get the mic to center of head location, at ear level. We have two ears, true, but symmetry is often in your favor. You can measure the three points - center of head, L ear, R ear, and see how different they are. If they ARE very different, then you have a serious LP acoustics problem anyway that needs to be solved, and no mic pattern will make it acceptable.

I applaud your brave experimental spirit. What you are trying goes against conventional wisdom and the way Audyssey has said to do it for years and years, but the goal is different, and it sounds like you have been bitten by the SS&I (soundstage & imaging) bug. Too bad there is NO CURE! hee hee


----------



## Talley

AudiocRaver said:


> Talley:
> 
> I like your approach, taking the body into account. Now if there was a way to just remove the head and... wait a minute, there could be a downside to that method.
> 
> If I understand correctly, your seat back is lower, like shoulder height or below? If so, top of head might work just as well as ear level, because no major dip from the seat back reflection - it can be BIG with a high chair back, 10 dB or more.
> 
> Something else you might try:
> Use soft blankets over pillows to simulate the body, get the mic to center of head location, at ear level. We have two ears, true, but symmetry is often in your favor. You can measure the three points - center of head, L ear, R ear, and see how different they are. If they ARE very different, then you have a serious LP acoustics problem anyway that needs to be solved, and no mic pattern will make it acceptable.
> 
> I applaud your brave experimental spirit. What you are trying goes against conventional wisdom and the way Audyssey has said to do it for years and years, but the goal is different, and it sounds like you have been bitten by the SS&I (soundstage & imaging) bug. Too bad there is NO CURE! hee hee


Understood and agree. I want to try the tight pattern but have been busy. 

As far as my MLP... I'm 3' off the wall and my ears are 12" above the highest part of the couch. I'm not exactly that close to the rear wall I mean it's not 5+ feet like most have but 3' decent enough WHEN combined with my absorption panel I wouldn't think there would be significant reflections there.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Pardon my dumbness but I know little of Audyssey. Are these measurements taken with all speakers running, just the front L/R, or the front L/R one at a time? 

And does the system apply EQ to each speaker individually?

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## tonyvdb

It measures each speaker one at a time and applies a separate EQ to each speaker as needed. The issue with taking only one reading or multipul readings in one spot is that would then be the only spot in the room that would be the "sweet spot" nothing wrong with doing it that way but if you have more then one listening position this would prove to be less than ideal. Also keep in mind that your ears are not in one position you have about a foot between them plus if you move your head having that tight of a sweet spot would mean that any movement out of that area could result in a big drop in the ideal sound your looking for.
I will also add that a speaker that has that tight a dispercment of its sound to change the imaging by moving a foot one way or the other in my opinion is not very well designed. I would look at room treatment first before focussing on that perfect toe in of the front speakers when using for movies as that will also mean that only the one position in the room will be ideal.

I've done the multipul readings within a couple feet of each other and my sweet spot does not noticeably change no matter where I sit in the front row 3 seats and even in the back row it sound great. Could be the quality of my speakers have a better image or just my room I don't know but doing just the one reading does not give me the best results even for music.


----------



## willis7469

Good points Tony. I can only speak for myself, but in my family, I'm the only one who's concerned with the sweet spot, and I'm pretty stationary. That's also not to say the rest of the seats are terrible either though. And if I ever demo for someone, they automatically get my seat. This obviously is not always the case, nor is it probably the status quo. Btw, what IS your hat size?


----------



## tonyvdb

willis7469 said:


> Btw, what IS your hat size?


LOL, my motorcycle helmets are an X Large.


----------



## Talley

willis7469 said:


> Good points Tony. I can only speak for myself, but in my family, I'm the only one who's concerned with the sweet spot, and I'm pretty stationary. That's also not to say the rest of the seats are terrible either though. And if I ever demo for someone, they automatically get my seat. This obviously is not always the case, nor is it probably the status quo. Btw, what IS your hat size?


This is me.

There is only one perfect seat in audio reproduction period. I am also the only one who cares. My wife... she goes sits in the corner since she can lay down as the couch has one of those long extensions... she literally does not care about surround or quality.

My kids... they run around making noise, they could care less.

it's all me. So why not make it sound perfect for me and me only 

So yes... I do agree that I need to at least test a small 12" square multi mic position as that may be better and I haven't gone through that small tight clustered setup yet.


----------



## willis7469

tonyvdb said:


> LOL, my motorcycle helmets are an X Large.


 that makes sense now. Lol. 
When I worked for a m/c accessory distributor, we used to joke that the next size after XXL was a 5gal bucket with a bungy cord! Nice visual ay?


----------



## tonyvdb

:rofl:


----------



## willis7469

Yeah Talley, I've thought about a 12"box size too. I have no real enough complaints to go through it again yet though. 'Cept maybe I could be usin me a nuvva subwoofa! I'm a tinkerer like you, but much is going on in our life right now, I'm gonna love it how it is. For now...


----------



## tcarcio

If you only do one position do you have to just keep the mic in one position and then run the tones 8 times or can you save the results after just one test? Hope that isn't a stupid question but I have always just followed the prompts and just moved the mic for each test.


----------



## AudiocRaver

tcarcio said:


> If you only do one position do you have to just keep the mic in one position and then run the tones 8 times or can you save the results after just one test? Hope that isn't a stupid question but I have always just followed the prompts and just moved the mic for each test.


We leave the mic in 1 spot and run through the tones multiple times for improved noise immunity. Sonnie does it 4 times, 8 would be fine, too. Three is minimum so any little noise hickup on one pass gets two hopefully clean passes to negate it.


----------



## tcarcio

AudiocRaver said:


> We leave the mic in 1 spot and run through the tones multiple times for improved noise immunity. Sonnie does it 4 times, 8 would be fine, too. Three is minimum so any little noise hickup on one pass gets two hopefully clean passes to negate it.


OK, I just remembered that my Onkyo has a quick set up and the XT setup so would it just be good enough to run the quick set up?


----------



## AudiocRaver

tcarcio said:


> OK, I just remembered that my Onkyo has a quick set up and the XT setup so would it just be good enough to run the quick set up?


No, the quick setup is just distances and levels, not Audyssey correction at all, so that would not work.


----------



## tcarcio

AudiocRaver said:


> No, the quick setup is just distances and levels, not Audyssey correction at all, so that would not work.


Gotcha, Thanks. I just finished re-calibrating using the 1 position 8 times and it is definitely much bass heavier in my LP. Not sure if I like it because when I put in the rocket launch from Interstellar my DTS-10 almost popped the top of my head off. My ears feel like they are going to pop...:yikes: I will have to play around with some settings and see how it sounds then.


----------



## Lumen

Talley said:


> I'm just saying... put the mic on top of your head while sitting in the MLP. Do a single test. and report the results. It's fool proof. Your head, the mic is on top, in the center. Done. Another point is... it's capturing the reflections off your legs, feet, arms, hands... etc. It's real testing done while your sitting there. Try it.


Will have plenty of peace and quiet this three-day weekend to do just that. There's a mountain of R&D invested in these tools, but I'm having a very hard time wrapping my trust around a measurement taken an inch above the armrest where my fingertips would be. Throw me into the single-point end of the flat-plane pool. Can't hurt to try!



AudiocRaver said:


> Talley:I like your approach, taking the body into account. Now if there was a way to just remove the head and... wait a minute, there could be a downside to that method.


:rofl2:



AudiocRaver said:


> If I understand correctly, your seat back is lower, like shoulder height or below? If so, top of head might work just as well as ear level, because no major dip from the seat back reflection - it can be BIG with a high chair back, 10 dB or more.


Apologies if I missed it. What single-point mic position would you recommend for a high seat back? Would a different mic type help? I'm thinking a cardioid in front of the face.


----------



## Talley

BlueRockinLou said:


> Will have plenty of peace and quiet this three-day weekend to do just that. There's a mountain of R&D invested in these tools, but I'm having a very hard time wrapping my trust around a measurement taken an inch above the armrest where my fingertips would be. Throw me into the single-point end of the flat-plane pool. Can't hurt to try!
> 
> :rofl2:
> 
> Apologies if I missed it. What single-point mic position would you recommend for a high seat back? Would a different mic type help? I'm thinking a cardioid in front of the face.


I'm not taking the measurement where my fingertips are. I set the microphone on top of my head so i know it's perfectly centered in between my ears where I'm sitting and so my whole body becomes part of the testing.


----------



## Talley

tcarcio said:


> Gotcha, Thanks. I just finished re-calibrating using the 1 position 8 times and it is definitely much bass heavier in my LP. Not sure if I like it because when I put in the rocket launch from Interstellar my DTS-10 almost popped the top of my head off. My ears feel like they are going to pop...:yikes: I will have to play around with some settings and see how it sounds then.



See what I mean! I take this as before u did mutiple tests around an area and now you centered at JUST the mlp. it makes the bass better IMHO.


----------



## NBPk402

The last time I set mine up... We did 8 positions but i did it this way:
1. I placed the mic between the 1st row MLP, and the 2nd row MLP
2. I ran Audyssey with the mic as described for 8 positions, but we only varied the positions by 12".

We found that our bass was much more even then before, and we now have excellent sound in both rows (MLP positions). Prior to doing it this way the MLP in the first row lacked bass, but now we have bass, and both MLPs have almost exactly the same sound.


----------



## tonyvdb

Talley said:


> I'm not taking the measurement where my fingertips are. I set the microphone on top of my head so i know it's perfectly centered in between my ears where I'm sitting and so my whole body becomes part of the testing.


Unfortunately the mic is not a Omni directional and does not hear much of anything below the base of the mic. So that theory is not correct.


----------



## Lumen

Talley said:


> I'm not taking the measurement where my fingertips are. I set the microphone on top of my head so i know it's perfectly centered in between my ears where I'm sitting and so my whole body becomes part of the testing.


I totally agree with you. Sorry about jumping in from a few pages back. I meant to include that the mic _can_ wind up at the fingertips depending on how you interpret the recommended mic positions _for Dirac Live_. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Audyssey and Dirac Live recommend almost the same mic pattern. Considering maximum distances from center can put a mic position at the fingertips, against the back wall, or even (GASP) directly on the seat cushion!!


----------



## primetimeguy

tcarcio said:


> Gotcha, Thanks. I just finished re-calibrating using the 1 position 8 times and it is definitely much bass heavier in my LP. Not sure if I like it because when I put in the rocket launch from Interstellar my DTS-10 almost popped the top of my head off. My ears feel like they are going to pop...:yikes: I will have to play around with some settings and see how it sounds then.


Did you remember to turn off Dynamic EQ as it gets enabled by default after running Audyssey, at least on my Onkyo 818.


----------



## willis7469

primetimeguy said:


> Did you remember to turn off Dynamic EQ as it gets enabled by default after running Audyssey, at least on my Onkyo 818.


 +1. Here too. 808.


----------



## tcarcio

primetimeguy said:


> Did you remember to turn off Dynamic EQ as it gets enabled by default after running Audyssey, at least on my Onkyo 818.


I left it on because I thought DEQ does most of its work at lower volumes and is less prevalent at higher volumes and I was listening at reference. And I should clarify it was not good bass just very loud and I think tomorrow I will re-cal again and move the mic in about 12'' intervals around the LP.


----------



## Talley

Well... maybe i need to learn how to test properly before I make threads like this.

I've only had 5 minutes of listening and I had to go pick up edge of tomorrow (yes just now watching this tonight)

a few sample songs on 8 mic testing and I'm pleased with the initial results BUT need to do some intensive critical listening.

I basically confined the testing to a 6" square. 1st spot was center of head then moved over 3" to test in the left ear position and then moved over 3" to the right of the 1st position to test the right ear and then moved forward 3" of that position and then moved 3" in front of the left ear position and then back to 1st potition and then 3" forward of that position and then back to the first position.

Very tightly clustered around the head. bass seems good.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Dynamic EQ can mess up imaging even at reference levels. Suggest you leave it off.


----------



## Talley

watched edge of tomorrow... awesome movie. The sound was awesome with the new calibration. I need to run some REW sweeps and see where it's at.

One thing is for certain... the bass seems to be much much better right out of the box. Audyssey had the front mains set to large, center to large, rear to small. the sub was set to -5.5 like normal, dialog was +2.5, crossover for rear was 40hz which first time it set it that low.

I manually set the front 3 to small and changed the crossover to 40hz and overall the movie experience was great...

although that intro scene produced some insane port noise on my sub... I think I need three more subs:scratch:

here was the test pattern I did based on the image below

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 1
7. 6
8. 1

I repeated the center spot 3 times as you can see. everything was bound to a small 6" square window. This means all around my head from my ears to my nose.

I will report back my impression but the pinpoint imaging seemed to improve over a single test.


----------



## tcarcio

AudiocRaver said:


> Dynamic EQ can mess up imaging even at reference levels. Suggest you leave it off.


I will shut it off and see how it sounds. :T


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

tonyvdb said:


> Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pardon my dumbness but I know little of Audyssey. Are these measurements taken with all speakers running, just the front L/R, or the front L/R one at a time?
> 
> And does the system apply EQ to each speaker individually?
> 
> 
> 
> It measures each speaker one at a time and applies a separate EQ to each speaker as needed.
Click to expand...

In that case I expect this is the source of the problem where imaging is concerned. Back in the mid ‘90s when I moved up to high-end equalizers I learned pretty quickly that applying different filters to the left and right speakers above about 3-400 Hz whacked out imaging. I thought perhaps it was because I only had 1/3-octave equalizers at the time, but in recent years, others here on this Forum have confirmed that even with precise parametric equalization they’ve had the same experiences as well.

What a lot of people don’t know is that equalizers accomplish response changes by introducing phase shift at and around the filter’s center frequency setting. With analog equalizers this is accomplished with capacitors and inductors, and with digital equalizers it’s done with taps on a digital delay line. But the fact is, without phase shift equalizers would not work at all. So basically, equalizers use time domain changes to accomplish frequency domain changes.

So why did the mismatched filters mess with imaging? Because a phase change was introduced to one speaker in a certain frequency range, but not the other. Either speaker played independently would sound identical because frequency response was appropriately matched, but played together you get the phase differences and the resulting dislocalized imaging. This is why I’ve typically recommended for people to use matching filters above ~3-400 Hz for the left and right speakers when performing manual equalizing.

The next issue I see, unfortunately, is the wonders of modern computing power. Before the advent of cheap processing, room analysis and equalization was limited to 1/3-octave resolution from both hardware RTA devices and equalizers. That seems quaint and outdated these days: Chris Kyriakakis claims Audyssey MultEQ XT can introduce hundreds of filters, and MultEQ XT32 thousands, to “make corrections to narrow peaks and dips in response,” in his words. 

But is this really necessary? Anyone who’s ever had hands-on use of a good parametric EQ (or possibly even a cheap one) will tell you that filters with tiny bandwidth and gain settings get you nothing audible with a program signal. Has Mr. Kyriakakis spent more time in a computer lab than hands-on with actual hardware in a playback system? As I mentioned years ago in my minimal EQ article, what’s the point of peppering the signal chain with a bunch of inaudible filters?

Audyssey utilizes FIR filters which are designed to address time domain (phase) as well as frequency response issues, but the phase issues the filters address are from the room. Maybe I don’t know enough about EQ filtering (very likely), but filters that address phase generated by the room (which isn’t necessarily all bad, by the way) seem to be of diminished effectiveness if they in turn introduce phase of their own.

Wayne’s research from his excellent Audyssey MultEQ FAQ and Setup Guide has confirmed that multiple spread-out mic locations might give improved frequency response over a broad area, but that imaging suffers as a result. I expect the cause of the poor imaging is that this approach results in drastically mismatched filtering between the left and right channels (someone could probably loop an Audyssey-equipped AVR through REW and confirm this). 

Thus Wayne’s recommendation on tight mic spacing when running Audyssey is a step in the right direction: Frequency response isn’t going to change significantly a few inches this way or that, at least above ~500 Hz. As a result, Audyssey probably performs less aggressive equalizing – hopefully only a few dozen filters instead of hundreds or thousands – and the result is filters that better match for the left and right speakers.

But is even this tight mic spacing necessary? Try this little test: Turn off the sub, disconnect the left or right speaker, play a broadband pink noise signal through the remaining one, and move your head a few inches away from, and around, the dead-center position – i.e. places where you might locate the Audyssey mic for a tight measurement pattern. Do you hear any audible change in the way the speaker sounds? Not likely, or if so not enough matter. How ‘bout when you move from the center seat on the sofa to the left or right? Probably the same. (Note, we only use one speaker for this because with both you’d hear a change with a mono pink noise signal once moved off-axis from dead center, due to timing [phase].)

The fact is that measurement mics are more sensitive to subtle location changes than the ear. And thanks to the power of cheap processing, that hypersensitivity can be translated to scary graphs that show visible changes in frequency response that the ears simply ignore. Or to a processor that generates “correction” filters to address problems that aren’t audible (introducing phase in the process). So even with the tight spacing technique, with the mic at locations where you can’t hear a difference yourself, Audyssey most likely is still introducing filtering that is offering no audible benefit – at least some, but probably a lot.

So the single-location approach to Audyssey and similar systems makes perfect sense to me. And the experiences of Wayne in his exhaustive evaluations and Talley’s experiences in this thread seem to bear this out.

I’m not saying here that Audyssey and similar systems are overblown and useless, only that some people’s experiences with them only seems to reinforce the idea that minimal EQ is more effective than hundreds or thousands of filters.

Wayne, for your next test maybe you can compare Audyssey or Dirac to manual equalization with a first-class parametric EQ and see if the former really delivers better results, either with response or imagining. :T

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## bkeeler10

Great post, Wayne, and some interesting points. And so the pendulum swings . . . Sometimes just because you can doesn't mean you should. I like your suggestion to the other Wayne (Audiocraver). I know he has used EQ via a plugin for foobar in the past so maybe he already has some ideas about it.


----------



## bkeeler10

Regarding the idea of placing the measurement mic on top of the head, that's quite clever. I would have a couple of reservations about it. First, you'll want to ensure that the thing is still pointing straight to the ceiling, not significantly tilted one way or the other (especially forward or backward). The other is that the mic will be significantly above ear level, as already alluded to. Solution for that would be to slouch during the measurement. 

The mic tip being above the head (especially combined with it being tilted to the rear of the room) could result in the mic picking up lower SPL at the higher frequencies, leading Audyssey or Dirac to boost that area and create a bright-sounding FR.


----------



## tonyvdb

I've found that the easy way to tell if room correction has hurt your imaging by simply selecting pure direct mode. Listening to the difference between that and stereo if Audyessey made any bad changes to the eq on the left or right channel it will be evident right away. 
Room acoustics and speaker placement are the biggest factors in getting a good front image I can't stress that enough.


----------



## Talley

listening now....

...for sure I'm sticking to my very tight 6" square 8 mic position with repeating center position 3 times setup.

imaging is amazing... pinpoint accuracy


----------



## AudiocRaver

BlueRockinLou said:


> Apologies if I missed it. What single-point mic position would you recommend for a high seat back? Would a different mic type help? I'm thinking a cardioid in front of the face.


High seat backs are comfy, but mess with the acoustics around the head. Even with a plushy blanket thrown over the seat back, there is enough reflection to cause a cancellation and dip in response at the ears. Use the regular omni Audyssey setup mic at the center-of-the-ear-line location. It will correct for that dip. Realizing that we are less sensitive to such dips, it is a broad dip and does take away some from definition and image clarity. The correction makes your soundstage & image clarity much better and a little more position sensitive than without, but that is part of the tradeoff with high seat backs.

Ear line to back of head is 4", but we usually sit with head forward a little, so 6" is a good distance. Closer and the dip/correction both get more severe.

Pretty sure the Audyssey setup mic is omni-"ish", at low through mid freq anyway, will be less so at HF. Will measure mine and post a graph.


----------



## Talley

I suppose that is a good reason my couch is lower in the back. the back of my couch is about even with the top of my shoulders so my entire head pops up above it. If I sit at the MLP then my head is on average 2' off the wall but I also put a computer chair in front of the couch for critical listening and that puts my head at 3.75' off the back wall which is exactly 25% of the length of the room, the back 25% which is suppose to be right on the ideal mark.


----------



## bkeeler10

For bass response at least, and in a rectangular room, nulls and peaks will be found at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 of the dimension of the room. You'd be better off at around 1/3 of the room's length instead (or 1/5 if it's not too close to the wall for other considerations).


----------



## willis7469

bkeeler10 said:


> For bass response at least, and in a rectangular room, nulls and peaks will be found at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 of the dimension of the room. You'd be better off at around 1/3 of the room's length instead (or 1/5 if it's not too close to the wall for other considerations).


 I believe the 1/3 or 1/5 is the way to go also.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Golden Mean: 0.62, or 62% of room length.


----------



## Talley

AudiocRaver said:


> Golden Mean: 0.62, or 62% of room length.


In my case room width.

Unfortunately/fortunately I have full freedom to do whatever I want with my room when it comes to the WAF factor... except:

1. Must have room for Christmas tree in corner every Christmas season.
2. Must be setup along the long walls (backward to a normal rectangular setup)

Considering this it throws everything off.

So far my room response is decent. I can't complain really. Just need to tame the wild echo/reverb/flutter that I have.... which is coming soon.


----------



## AudiocRaver

62% of whatever dimension you wish to optimize.


----------



## FargateOne

If I may add my little contribution here. I am neither an expert nor a sound engineer.
But I made a lot of experiments in a little room with YPAO.

My chairs must be at 18 inches from the back wall and I can not have more than one sub if I want to avoid divorce procedure (32 years later it would be stupid !)

Recently, I used an Excel room mode calculator. IF I understand well the theory, I discovered that at my main listening position (MLP) I had (by chance !) width and height mode null of 2nd, 3rd or 4th orders for 75hz or 147hz. More, my sub (it is between the center and the right front main speaker) was right on a width mode null of the 2nd order i.e. 98 hz (147hz is the 3rd order of 98hz) making that 98hz FR not existing because was not excited by the sub.
The automatic EQ of the receiver used a lot of filters only to attempt to get rid of this approx 150hz null. For ex. 3 filters at 150hz for the right channel, 2 filters at 300hz for the center.
A pattern of 8 tight mic spacing positions helped but I never get good results (dialogue in a tunnel like effect).
Now, I cheat a little bit...with the mic position not in love with my wife !!. 
Always keep a tight mic pattern and the first measurement at MLP. But positons 2 and 3 for ears (3 inches left and right from the MLP) are moved 3 inches forward between the nulls of the 3rd and 4th order of width mode. I moved the sub backward of 3 inches to be sure that it is in between the 2nd and 3rd axial width modes (between to make sure that 98hz and 147hz order exist) .
For the height of the mic I moved it 1 inch upward my ear height to be sure to put it in between the mode of first and 4th order (75hz and 150hz). 
Also, for the last 4 mic positions, I take care to never put it back on the same width and height planes that gives the mode null of any orders.
Then, YPAO uses filters for different frequencies instead of 3 filters at 150hz to add 5.5 dB with a large Q.
I gain in sound stage imagery and more in sound quality.


----------



## AudiocRaver

FargateOne said:


> If I may add my little contribution here. I am neither an expert nor a sound engineer.
> But I made a lot of experiments in a little room with YPAO.
> 
> My chairs must be at 18 inches from the back wall and I can not have more than one sub if I want to avoid divorce procedure (32 years later it would be stupid !)


There are a FEW things in life more important than good sound.



> Recently, I used an Excel room mode calculator. IF I understand well the theory, I discovered that at my main listening position (MLP) I had (by chance !) width and height mode null of 2nd, 3rd or 4th orders for 75hz or 147hz. More, my sub (it is between the center and the right front main speaker) was right on a width mode null of the 2nd order i.e. 98 hz (147hz is the 3rd order of 98hz) making that 98hz FR not existing because was not excited by the sub.
> The automatic EQ of the receiver used a lot of filters only to attempt to get rid of this approx 150hz null. For ex. 3 filters at 150hz for the right channel, 2 filters at 300hz for the center.
> A pattern of 8 tight mic spacing positions helped but I never get good results (dialogue in a tunnel like effect).
> Now, I cheat a little bit...with the mic position not in love with my wife !!.
> Always keep a tight mic pattern and the first measurement at MLP. But positons 2 and 3 for ears (3 inches left and right from the MLP) are moved 3 inches forward between the nulls of the 3rd and 4th order of width mode. I moved the sub backward of 3 inches to be sure that it is in between the 2nd and 3rd axial width modes (between to make sure that 98hz and 147hz order exist) .
> For the height of the mic I moved it 1 inch upward my ear height to be sure to put it in between the mode of first and 4th order (75hz and 150hz).
> Also, for the last 4 mic positions, I take care to never put it back on the same width and height planes that gives the mode null of any orders.
> Then, YPAO uses filters for different frequencies instead of 3 filters at 150hz to add 5.5 dB with a large Q.
> I gain in sound stage imagery and more in sound quality.


Interesting, they seem like small moves to make a significant difference at the wavelengths involved with such low frequencies, 15 feet for 75 Hz, for example, but I guess if you are talking about avoiding actual null points, very small moves can make a significant difference around a null. And you cannot argue with results.

Well done. "Yeah science!"


----------



## AudiocRaver

A couple of discussion points in this thread have gotten me thinking, and I took some measurements which have been posting in separate threads because there may be people interested who are not following this thread.

The first is concerning the Audyssey setup mic and its directionality, which is not what one would think of as an omnidirectional pattern. It has some funny frequency response patterns depending on which angle you are looking at it. It is posted for in this Audyssey Setup Mic Directionality Pattern thread.

The second area concerns the single mic point setup approach and its validity, especially relative to a high-backed chair. There are several measurement graphs and some discussion about that in this Data Supporting a Single Setup Mic Position for Audyssey or Dirac Live thread.


----------



## Lumen

AudiocRaver said:


> High seat backs are comfy, but mess with the acoustics around the head. Even with a plushy blanket thrown over the seat back, there is enough reflection to cause a cancellation and dip in response at the ears. Use the regular omni Audyssey setup mic at the center-of-the-ear-line location. It will correct for that dip. Realizing that we are less sensitive to such dips, it is a broad dip and does take away some from definition and image clarity. The correction makes your soundstage & image clarity much better and a little more position sensitive than without, but that is part of the tradeoff with high seat backs. Ear line to back of head is 4", but we usually sit with head forward a little, so 6" is a good distance. Closer and the dip/correction both get more severe. Pretty sure the Audyssey setup mic is omni-"ish", at low through mid freq anyway, will be less so at HF. Will measure mine and post a graph.


It's easy to say I reached the same conclusion And you'd be right to question my credibility in the absence of supporting data, but I did wind up with decent--not exceptional--results through trial and error. Still, your distances and methodology explain a lot of postulating on my part, and I'm grateful to you for sharing 

Sent from my iPad using HTShack


----------



## Lumen

AudiocRaver said:


> A couple of discussion points in this thread have gotten me thinking, and I took some measurements which have been posting in separate threads because there may be people interested who are not following this thread. The first is concerning the Audyssey setup mic and its directionality, which is not what one would think of as an omnidirectional pattern. It has some funny frequency response patterns depending on which angle you are looking at it. It is posted for in this Audyssey Setup Mic Directionality Pattern thread. The second area concerns the single mic point setup approach and its validity, especially relative to a high-backed chair. There are several measurement graphs and some discussion about that in this Data Supporting a Single Setup Mic Position for Audyssey or Dirac Live thread.


Excellent summary. Can we make this into a STICKY thread?

Sent from my iPad using HTShack


----------



## AudiocRaver

I know this thread has been quiet for awhile. The Data Supporting a Single Setup Mic Position for Audyssey or Dirac Live thread has been updated with new recommendations for Audyssey calibrations. Basically, the single mic position calibration is NOT recommended any more, by me anyway, for Dirac Live, or for Audyssey with a high-backed seat. Follow the link above for details.


----------



## FargateOne

Dear Wayne,
may I add to all your very good and interesting threads about mic positions that I found much better results with a blanket in polar fabrics thrown around the feet of my camera tripod (I know that a boom mic would be better) and around the base of the mic .


----------



## AudiocRaver

FargateOne said:


> Dear Wayne,
> may I add to all your very good and interesting threads about mic positions that I found much better results with a blanket in polar fabrics thrown around the feet of my camera tripod (I know that a boom mic would be better) and around the base of the mic .


Very good thoughts. Yes, every little improvement like that helps clean up reflections and leads toward another level of improvement. Thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## FargateOne

I followed yesterday your suggestion to run 3 times the test tones at the MLCP instead of only 1 and 7 others elsewhere in a tight pattern around LP. 
I confirm: I get a much detailed SS&I without so audible differences in FR. Also, I noticed that the 7 filters set by YPAO for fronts L\R channels are now near the same above 315hz. Maybe this explains that if I remember your recommandation to get the same eq filters for the mains speakers above 3-400hz.

Also it seems that all those tests mic patterns with Audyssey can be applied to YPAO. (BTW it will be great to see the results of a comparison between Audyssey and YPAO R.S.C. that tonyvdb plans to do one day)

Now, even my chair is not a high back one I will try soon 8 positions along the hypotenuse of the triangle and report.
One day I will get REW and graphs and proofs [email protected]!!


----------



## AudiocRaver

Good feedback, thanks. I have no YPAO experience, am not sure just how the technology relates to other products. It is probably more Audyssey-like, so using those mic patterns should help a lot.

Keep us posted.


----------



## FargateOne

Hello,
just for the fun of it (because it is fun !) I tried the triangle pattern even if my chair back is at shoulder level and with YPAO.
The 7 positions along the hypothenuse (from 12 inches above and 12 inches forward ) does not sound good.The YPAO filters were as bad as what I got with a large mic multi position pattern for 3 seats listening positions.

But I get my best results since a long time (SS&I and sound) with 3 calibrations at the MLCP, one measurement 6 inches straight above LPC, one measurement straight forward from LPC, 6 inches away of the MLCP and one in the middle of the hypothenuse of this little triangle for a total of 6 measurements.


----------



## FargateOne

I add a detail. First I tried 3 measurements at the MLCP only.
Subjectively, the 6 positions was better, to my ears at least!


----------



## AudiocRaver

Thank you VERY much for giving it a try with YPAO, and for posting your feedback.

This occurs to me: Without extensive testing, it is always difficult to tell how much of a given test experience is telling us about the technology - YPAO vs Audyssey, for instance - and the individual speaker / room / seating setup. BUT... I think you nailed the importance of finding the right balance between:

the highly focused approach of using only several repetitions at the LPC point
the approach of including more nearby points so the FR is less likely to be skewed by the one-point method
All the feedback I've gotten so far seems to support that the right triangle gives a good guide for where to get more measurement points, and the balance of LPC to non-LPC points and where thy are chosen from will vary due to individual factors. Along with that, the triangle size may need to be smaller, as in your case (I think 1 foot on the sides makes sense for maximum), and fewer non-LPC points are best widely spread out along the triangle hypotenuse. Hopefully additional test feedback from others will help confirm this.

Thanks again for your feedback.


----------



## Lumen

AudiocRaver said:


> Hopefully additional test feedback from others will help confirm this.


Please forgive my density  
Are you interested in feedback for Dirac correction using the triangular mic pattern?

Sent from my iPad using HTShack


----------



## AudiocRaver

BlueRockinLou said:


> Please forgive my density
> Are you interested in feedback for Dirac correction using the triangular mic pattern?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using HTShack


Please! Although the context is a little different with Dirac, because good results can be obtained with good (perhaps not 100%) consistency following the directions. With YPAO and Audyssey, that is not the case as far as soundstage & imaging performance is concerned.

But it is still good data, and much appreciated. Thanks for offering.


----------



## Lumen

AudiocRaver said:


> Please! Although the context is a little different with Dirac, because good results can be obtained with good (perhaps not 100%) consistency following the directions. With YPAO and Audyssey, that is not the case as far as soundstage & imaging performance is concerned. But it is still good data, and much appreciated. Thanks for offering.


You betcha! There's a 3-day weekend approaching, which serves up extra time to experiment. I plan on returning the PSA XV15 (which I've been auditioning and have become quite familiar with) to its rightful place. I've been meaning to investigate the cause of some quirky midrange distortion after certain Dirac calibrations. This is the perfect opportunity to help us both out.

Sent from my iPad using HTShack


----------



## Talley

BlueRockinLou said:


> You betcha! There's a 3-day weekend approaching, which serves up extra time to experiment. I plan on returning the PSA XV15 (which I've been auditioning and have become quite familiar with) to its rightful place. I've been meaning to investigate the cause of some quirky midrange distortion after certain Dirac calibrations. This is the perfect opportunity to help us both out.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using HTShack


Woot Woot... 3 days indeed. I plan on building a bunch of QRD diffusion strips. Will be a busy weekend for me for sure. Want to get a good amount installed in my room


----------



## FargateOne

AudiocRaver said:


> Thank you VERY much for giving it a try with YPAO, and for posting your feedback.
> (...)
> All the feedback I've gotten so far seems to support that the right triangle gives a good guide for where to get more measurement points, and the balance of LPC to non-LPC points and where thy are chosen from will vary due to individual factors. Along with that, the triangle size may need to be smaller, as in your case (I think 1 foot on the sides makes sense for maximum), and fewer non-LPC points are best widely spread out along the triangle hypotenuse. Hopefully additional test feedback from others will help confirm this.
> 
> (...)"
> You're welcome and agreed.
> Hopefully one day I will have graphs to support my findings. But for now it is good to find what I like by ears. Sometimes the graph can show a change barely audible. I this case, the benefit of the pattern was easy to ear.


----------



## Lumen

BlueRockinLou said:


> Are you interested in feedback for Dirac correction using the triangular mic pattern?





AudiocRaver said:


> Please!


Hi Wayne. Is there any particular test regimen you'd like me to follow other than that already described? Maybe you'd like a certain number of trials, specific system setup or AVR settings?

Just as an FYI and to increase your level of confidence in the results, I'll connect the PSA XV15 sub back into the system, and tune it as optimally as my meager talents will allow (at this particular stage in my development). That means no manual time-alignment, unless I can figure out how to use the sub's phase control to massage the crossover region after Dirac does it's thing (may need to rethink that). As an FYI, Dirac doesn't accommodate manual distance settings.

EDIT: I can see I'm going off-topic with this post, so I'd just like to attempt correcting my previous statement before I move on... Some digging made me realize that time aligning the sub with the mains involves working with their impulse response (time domain). Massaging frequency response (frequency domain) through the crossover region by using the sub's delay control is unrelated.


----------



## AudiocRaver

BlueRockinLou said:


> Hi Wayne. Is there any particular test regimen you'd like me to follow other than that already described? Maybe you'd like a certain number of trials, specific system setup or AVR settings?
> 
> Just as an FYI and to increase your level of confidence in the results, I'll connect the PSA XV15 sub back into the system, and tune it as optimally as my meager talents will allow (at this particular stage in my development). That means no manual time-alignment, unless I can figure out how to use the sub's phase control to massage the crossover region after Dirac does it's thing (may need to rethink that). As an FYI, Dirac doesn't accommodate manual distance settings.
> 
> EDIT: I can see I'm going off-topic with this post, so I'd just like to attempt correcting my previous statement before I move on... Some digging made me realize that time aligning the sub with the mains involves working with their impulse response (time domain). Massaging frequency response (frequency domain) through the crossover region by using the sub's delay control is unrelated.


Hey Lou,

The main thing is that you get results that you are happy with, and if you try anything that does NOT work, it is good to hear about that, too. Especially with Dirac, which seems to be extremely forgiving, as long as the basic approach recommended by Dirac & miniDSP is followed.

Trying the right triangle approach with Dirac, which I have not done, is an intriguing idea. Applying the pattern to Audyssey to get good SS&I, some basic principles seem to apply, from post # 85. It would be interesting to see if it works with Dirac and how well, so thanks for any input that supports or refutes it relative to Dirac Live:

First measurement at Listening Position Center-of-head point (LPC). I have also done Dirac calibration with the first three measurements all at LPC without moving the mic, then the other six measurements around the LP area (within about 2 to 3 feet of LPC).
Triangle size seems to need to be smaller than 1 ft on a side where there is more acoustical variation at the LP with Audyssey (probably chair related more than anything else). Optimum size of triangle for Dirac? I would guess 1 foot minimum, maybe even 1.5 foot. I would not try beyond that, seems little point to it.
Distribution? Three at LPC and the rest along the hypotenuse would be an interesting trial. One at LPC, four along hypotenuse, four random, another trial. These are just ideas that come to mind.
Careful physical spacing measurements are what I personally want to avoid, so keep it loose.
Have some fun this weekend, too.


----------



## Lumen

AudiocRaver said:


> Hey Lou, The main thing is that you get results that you are happy with, and if you try anything that does NOT work, it is good to hear about that, too.
> .
> .
> It would be interesting to see if it works with Dirac and how well, so thanks for any input that supports or refutes it relative to Dirac Live
> .
> .
> Have some fun this weekend, too.


Thanks, this IS fun! Are you looking only for subjective feedback? For my own benefit, I'll be using REW to confirm Dirac Live results. Since I'll have the graphs anyway, I may post a few if they seem to contribute anything worthwhile.


----------



## AudiocRaver

BlueRockinLou said:


> Are you looking only for subjective feedback?


Mainly soundstage and imaging (SS&I) results.

You have mentioned midrange distortion with Dirac, which I have not run into. It would be good to understand that better.

With any calibration like this, it is hard to get verification of frequency response without repeating all the measurement positions with REW and averaging those curves, way too much trouble. The moving mic method (MMM) works well. With REW in RTA mode with 1/6 oct averaging and infinite averages, running pink noise through one speaker, start the averaging and move the measurement mic slowly (4" / sec) through the measurement area at random for a minute, click off the averaging at the end, and you have a pretty repeatable snapshot of the average FR in that area. [Get the mouse pointer hovering over the RTA on/off button, lift carefully, hold it in one hand as a start/stop remote.] Mic orientation should match the calibration file, as always.


----------



## Lumen

AudiocRaver said:


> Mainly soundstage and imaging (SS&I) results.


Okay I'm game for either of the next two logical steps (but remain open to suggestion):
Shorter study which compares each of your suggested trials against no processing at all, and against each other. Mains stay in their compromised SS&I locations. Subwoofer time-delay not manually tuned after Dirac processing.
 Longer study which puts a twist in the plot. This project would perform each of your suggested trials in each of two speaker configurations: (a) their present compromised SS&I locations, and (b) their former optimized pattern. Group-a may benefit more from Dirac, because its compromised speaker locations leave more room for improvement. Group-b benefits less because the system starts with good SS&I, so results may not be as important, but have greater potential to demonstrate what can go wrong.

*Some more considerations:*
You already know "human hearing" and "short memory" go hand-in-hand. It would be ideal if the XMC-1 included programmable presets for multiple Dirac calibrations. As-is it only stores one. Comparisons become suspect as filter download time separates trials. 
Proper demo material must be chosen and assimilated (if not already done)
Use the same customized house curve for each trial so as not to bias the listener (similar to level-matching)



AudiocRaver said:


> You have mentioned midrange distortion with Dirac, which I have not run into. It would be good to understand that better.


 It's like the distortion an over driven guitar amp provides, except affecting all large section of the mids. I've not conducted extensive testing to tell if the problem is present on all media. I've noticed it on both low and high-quality DVD/BD. I've been meaning to first make sure it's not a bad driver! Running a sweep through the mids should tell. 



AudiocRaver said:


> With any calibration like this, it is hard to get verification of frequency response without repeating all the measurement positions with REW and averaging those curves, way too much trouble. The moving mic method (MMM) works well. With REW in RTA mode with 1/6 oct averaging and infinite averages, running pink noise through one speaker, start the averaging and move the measurement mic slowly (4" / sec) through the measurement area at random for a minute, click off the averaging at the end, and you have a pretty repeatable snapshot of the average FR in that area. [Get the mouse pointer hovering over the RTA on/off button, lift carefully, hold it in one hand as a start/stop remote.] Mic orientation should match the calibration file, as always.


Excellent summary! Something new to practice!
but, errrr... maybe I crossed threads. Aren't we only interested in matching through the crossover region after processing? I was under the impression that low frequencies didn't need averaging. Or maybe I'm confusing averaging with smoothing. Arrrggghhh!


----------



## Lumen

In all your years experience, Wayne, have you ever had someone ask if SS&I applied to multichannel? I think you once wrote that a system which has its L/R mains properly dialed-in will be outstanding for multichannel as well. My reason for bringing this up is I'm not sure whether to use music, movies, or both to evaluate the results of each Dirac trial. *Naturally I have my favorite demo material, but if I have a staple of YOURS then test results may be more valuable to you?*

_Oh, almost forgot..._
My XMC-1 hardware runs Dirac LE Full, which is firmware optimized to run on Emotiva hardware. The "Full" designation signifies it accommodates custom house curves, windowed processing, and more. *Dirac LE Full differs slightly in its feature set and capabilities than Dirac Live, but that should be of no consequence in testing*--except maybe for the Dirac LE Full's lack of speaker distance adjustments (cannot accommodate delay/phase adjustment).


----------



## Talley

BlueRockinLou said:


> In all your years experience, Wayne, have you ever had someone ask if SS&I applied to multichannel? I think you once wrote that a system which has its L/R mains properly dialed-in will be outstanding for multichannel as well. My reason for bringing this up is I'm not sure whether to use music, movies, or both to evaluate the results of each Dirac trial. *Naturally I have my favorite demo material, but if I have a staple of YOURS then test results may be more valuable to you?*
> 
> _Oh, almost forgot..._
> My XMC-1 hardware runs Dirac LE Full, which is firmware optimized to run on Emotiva hardware. The "Full" designation signifies it accommodates custom house curves, windowed processing, and more. *Dirac LE Full differs slightly in its feature set and capabilities than Dirac Live, but that should be of no consequence in testing*--except maybe for the Dirac LE Full's lack of speaker distance adjustments (cannot accommodate delay/phase adjustment).



Wait what?... You mean that the dirac in the XMC-1 cannot make manual adjustments?

man.... what does this mean as a guy who is fixing to buy one.


----------



## Lumen

Talley said:


> Wait what?... You mean that the dirac in the XMC-1 cannot make manual adjustments?
> 
> man.... what does this mean as a guy who is fixing to buy one.


I should have added that applied only to the XMC-1's Dirac mode. The XMC-1 also includes an REW compatible mode. It's just more of a pain than a problem. For REW, the owner has to type in each filters' parameters. There are three:
center frequency
Q (quality factor)
gain
On average, I expect REW to generate 30-50 values that I then need to type in by hand. Manually. All of them. But you don't have to enter all, especially overlapping boosts. My keyboard is my friend!


----------



## john a hunter

When I first experienced Audyssey in my Denon receiver few years ago, I thought it was great. However repeated listening left me more and more dissatisfied with the sound quality especially its hard top end.

After endless attempts with various mike positions, I simply turned off the EQ.

About 2 years ago I moved and was able to set up a proper 7.2 theatre and graduated to a Yamaha CX5000. Straight away I found YPAO much better both in its application and results. However before long, following the usual setup instructions around the seating area, resulted in a sound which was not as good as it could be and did not reach the potential of the rest of my setup.

Then I read about good results just from one position mike position and when I tried this there was a quantum leap in quality.

After some time with this set up, I again researched and read about multi mike set ups closely around the MLP. I tried this, 8 positions in about a radius of a foot around the MLP and again there was a marked improvement.

Now after reading this thread I discovered both Talley’s and FargateOne’s methods.

I have now tried both which give me similar results with a much better depth to the front soundstage, a nice open top end with good transparency and a well integrated bass. 

Am still trying them with my usual test discs (I listen to a lot of music as well as movies), to see which works the best for my room.

So thank you all for taking the time to investigate and then to share your results with everyone.

A non technical person such as me greatly appreciates your efforts.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Lou,

Sorry to be slow getting back to you. Hope you had a fun & productive weekend.



BlueRockinLou said:


> Excellent summary! Something new to practice!
> but, errrr... maybe I crossed threads. Aren't we only interested in matching through the crossover region after processing? I was under the impression that low frequencies didn't need averaging. Or maybe I'm confusing averaging with smoothing. Arrrggghhh!


The MMM is meant to be a quick, easy, fairly accurate way to get a REW crosscheck on final EQed frequency response without having to average together a bunch of REW measurement points through the LP area. You are correct, it is mainly mids and highs one would be looking at. It is a "How did I do, the final FR should look something like _this_" kind of verification.



BlueRockinLou said:


> In all your years experience, Wayne, have you ever had someone ask if SS&I applied to multichannel? I think you once wrote that a system which has its L/R mains properly dialed-in will be outstanding for multichannel as well. My reason for bringing this up is I'm not sure whether to use music, movies, or both to evaluate the results of each Dirac trial. *Naturally I have my favorite demo material, but if I have a staple of YOURS then test results may be more valuable to you?*


Yes, the same applies to multichannel, L/R mains being most important, but applying somewhat to all of the "pairs" in a multichannel system. Mains setup should, I believe, be optimized for SS&I. Surrounds will usually be placed with other considerations getting priority - height, seating area coverage, angle around the speaker circle.

For SS&I, I have found music to be the most revealing to test with.

Each listener will have his own test material to work work with and trust.




> _Oh, almost forgot..._
> My XMC-1 hardware runs Dirac LE Full, which is firmware optimized to run on Emotiva hardware. The "Full" designation signifies it accommodates custom house curves, windowed processing, and more. *Dirac LE Full differs slightly in its feature set and capabilities than Dirac Live, but that should be of no consequence in testing*--except maybe for the Dirac LE Full's lack of speaker distance adjustments (cannot accommodate delay/phase adjustment).


Dirac does delay/phase adjustment, of course, just does not allow the user to change values, and that is probably a good thing.


----------



## Lumen

AudiocRaver said:


> Lou, Sorry to be slow getting back to you. Hope you had a fun & productive weekend.


No problem, and hope you and yours enjoyed the holiday, too! I was able to squeeze some HT time between the festivities and completed two different triangle-based mic patterns (more on that later). I even figured out how to download the XMC-1's entire configuration onto a thumb drive for later upload. The XMC-1 holds only a single Dirac calibration at a time. Switching between trials will now be faster and easier, as the drive can hold all the trials we need. Also picked out some demo material, but those are in a state of flux for now.



AudiocRaver said:


> Yes, the same applies to multichannel, L/R mains being most important, but applying somewhat to all of the "pairs" in a multichannel system. Mains setup should, I believe, be optimized for SS&I. Surrounds will usually be placed with other considerations getting priority - height, seating area coverage, angle around the speaker circle.


My surround locations are somewhat compromised being near the ceiling-wall juncture and aim relegated to a couple of feet above the LP (see pics in Post #59 here). Previous Dirac trials have been hit-and-miss regarding convincing surround effects, so I'm anxious to discover how much the Triangle Calibration Method can compensate. It seems promising so far with just casual listening/viewing.

Wayne, I so desperately wanted it to work, but my 13'2" x 8'11" room is too small to accommodate your Two-Channel Speaker Setup Guide for a Deep Soundstage. The Simple Method yields 4.8' from speaker plane to LP, which forces furniture out of the room. The Complex Method yields 29.6" speaker to side wall spacing, which puts them in line-of-sight to screen. My room is also too small for a standard radial Dolby 5.1 setup . For a 22-30 degree angle between a main speaker and the LP, they would need to be 88-126" apart and 118-126" from the LP. That would push the tweeters about 9" from the side walls and too close to the front wall, in my experience.

So what to do? Considering the complications afforded by the addition of a bona-fide HT subwoofer (PSA XV-15), I returned the mains to their previously derived locations with tweeters 21" from side walls (9' 8" apart) and 53" from front wall. Now about 3.5' in front of the screen, they yield the best SS&I while providing the best compromise for sub and TV locations. All that's left for me to do before investigating the Triangle Method in earnest is to adjust the HF diffusers on my bass traps to enhance SS&I even more.



AudiocRaver said:


> For SS&I, I have found music to be the most revealing to test with. Each listener will have his own test material to work work with and trust.


Music it is, then! And I'll throw in just a few surround movies to check surround scene realism. Stay tuned to this channel for future reports!



AudiocRaver said:


> Dirac does delay/phase adjustment, of course, just does not allow the user to change values, and that is probably a good thing.


Time-domain correction is Dirac's forte. Shielding the user from themselves IS good, because it can be tempting to fiddle with things one knows little to nothing about!


----------



## FargateOne

Hello,
I ran some new tests with the triangle patern and I confirm that with a low back chair and YPAO 6 measures (3 at the MLCP and 3 along the hypothenuse) gives the best SS&I.
I must say that this forum is very helpfull. 
I must add my thanks to you guies and your forum. I followed Audiocraver's two channels guide for a deep soundstage. Even with many compromises (see my system) the SS&I improve a lot. For instance, I put the FR on the right spot from the side wall (not possible for the FL) , Imoved the speakers forward of6 inches, I increased the distance between it by only 5 inches ( average B/A ratio= 1,09) and...I can believe it. The orchestra in a movie is clearly detailed for the first time since 2005 ! It is at the center ! and the dialogues are eay to ear!.
Now, I would like to know which thread to post my graphs to get help to understand what is a smooth tranistion at the crossover point?. 
Th


----------



## Talley

Just waiting for my Dirac Live Full reg key so I can begin my testing of the XMC-1. Will be curious as to the gains over the Audyssey from before.


----------



## AudiocRaver

FargateOne said:


> Hello,
> I ran some new tests with the triangle patern and I confirm that with a low back chair and YPAO 6 measures (3 at the MLCP and 3 along the hypothenuse) gives the best SS&I.
> I must say that this forum is very helpfull.
> I must add my thanks to you guies and your forum. I followed Audiocraver's two channels guide for a deep soundstage. Even with many compromises (see my system) the SS&I improve a lot. For instance, I put the FR on the right spot from the side wall (not possible for the FL) , Imoved the speakers forward of6 inches, I increased the distance between it by only 5 inches ( average B/A ratio= 1,09) and...I can believe it. The orchestra in a movie is clearly detailed for the first time since 2005 ! It is at the center ! and the dialogues are eay to ear!.


It is very rewarding to hear you are getting improved results. Thanks for the feedback.



> Now, I would like to know which thread to post my graphs to get help to understand what is a smooth tranistion at the crossover point?.
> Th


I assume you mean the subwoofer to mains crossover point. Try the System Setup and Connection forum, in the Home Theater - Audio / Video section (this section). There is a lot of subwoofer setup discussion going on there these days.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Lumen said:


> So what to do? Considering the complications afforded by the addition of a bona-fide HT subwoofer (PSA XV-15), I returned the mains to their previously derived locations with tweeters 21" from side walls (9' 8" apart) and 53" from front wall. Now about 3.5' in front of the screen, they yield the best SS&I while providing the best compromise for sub and TV locations. All that's left for me to do before investigating the Triangle Method in earnest is to adjust the HF diffusers on my bass traps to enhance SS&I even more.


You are doing the best you can with practical limitations to work with.

If the HF diffusers are very far horizontally from the speaker-to-ear line, and additional delay is minimal (close to the direct path from the speakers to LP), then I would NOT use diffusion, as it will smear the imaging. I know that others disagree with me on this, but I experimented with it a lot, and that is my conclusion.


----------



## Lumen

AudiocRaver said:


> You are doing the best you can with practical limitations to work with.


Thank you! I can't take all the credit, though. I read another post somewhere around here, where the member had also taken your advice: improvise! :bigsmile:



AudiocRaver said:


> If the HF diffusers are very far horizontally from the speaker-to-ear line, and additional delay is minimal (close to the direct path from the speakers to LP), then I would NOT use diffusion, as it will smear the imaging. I know that others disagree with me on this, but I experimented with it a lot, and that is my conclusion.


Point well taken. Half the circumference of a single, round ASC trap is an HF diffuser; the other half is an HF absorber. Presently, all diffusing surfaces are aimed toward their closest wall (away from the LP). That's except for the two behind the LP. For movies, I intentionally wanted to scatter surround effects, so I aimed their diffusing surfaces away from each other and parallel to the back wall. 

There may be some residual effects from reflections between the diffusors and the walls. But I think those speaker-wall-diffuser-LP paths would be swamped by the much stronger reflections of the speaker-wall-LP paths. In any event, I've learned that the reflective properties of these unique traps are powerful tools in shaping a soundstage. And like any powerful tool they take time, patience, and experience to master; I have little of the first two, which makes it rough to acquire the third! :R

As for testing your Triangle Pattern, I so far have two schemes stored on a USB stick (with more planned as time and interest allows). This weekend I'll have some evaluation time and will report back with some observations and impressions. I wonder if Diracs "superior" time-domain correction would filter out the image-smearing diffusion if I aim them all at the mic? :devil:


----------



## Lumen

Almost ready to formally evaluate a couple different Dirac calibrations of my room. Both use Wayne's Triangular Mic Pattern as shown below. During the informal evaluation period with just casual listening/viewing, the results are magnificent! But I'm getting ahead of myself. At this point I'm unsure of whether the performance leap is solely due to the mic pattern, or if it's also attributable to having moved my mains back to their SS&I sweet spots. It's been tough not to just forge ahead with glowing feedback, so I've lived with the system for a week in its current configuration and state of calibration to become acclimated. Finally, I hope to take the "winner" of this comparison and create a third calibration with tighter spacing. I anticipate the difference (if any) between the first two trials will be minimal; yet I may need to run my previous default cal of 1 @LP, then 4hi/4lo to re-establish a familiar reference and verify the improvement isn't just due to relocating speakers. 

Again, these comparisons are necessarily subjective, but I've tried to level the playing field as much as possible by using the same customized house curve across all trials, and by using the same playback volume for each demo track. No, they weren't level-matched. Aside from not having the requisite gear, the comparison timetable is much too long to worry about levels (we're talking more than a week)! I'll be giving my general impressions of Dirac calibration results for each mic pattern, and specific examples taken from my evaluation notes. None of this is carved in stone--I'm open to suggestion. There may be some objection but as it stands, I don't plan to smooth the dip in the crossover region at this time, because I've finished the 1st round listening sessions. Post-Dirac smoothing of FR through the crossover region would give the next trial(s) an unfair subjective advantage. IMO, the dip shouldn't interfere with evaluating SS&I. Please let me know if you disagree.

*Wayne's Triangular Mic Pattern (Dirac Trial #3)*









*Lou's Modified Triangle (Dirac Trials#4)*










*Corrected FR (Dirac Trial #3 vs #4)*










*Waterfall: Sub+Mains (Dirac Trial #4 Before Dirac)*










*Waterfall: Sub+Mains (Dirac Trial #4 After Dirac)*


----------



## tcarcio

With this conversation about EQ I happened to see this video on another site and although it is an hour and change long I found it interesting and thought it might be somewhat relevant to the conversation. It is obviously his opinion but I felt that he touched upon some very good points.


----------



## Lumen

Just setting the stage  for my future comparisons of triangular mic pattern...

*My General Impressions of the Triangular Mic Pattern:*
2ch - Expanded soundstage in all three dimensions
2ch - Increased image focus
2ch - Absence of midrange glare or lower treble hardness
5.1ch - Major improvements in spaciousness

*Reference Mic Pattern (unless otherwise specified):*
1 location @LP
4 locations in rectangular pattern below seat back
4 locations in same rectangular pattern above seat back

*Reference Material (Eagles - "Hotel California" from Hell Freezes Over):*
00:15-00:16 ... Someone moans "yeah" at chest level in R channel very deep down in mix (almost inaudible)
00:17-00:30 ... Lead guitar with increasingly fast picking should not move or grow/shrink
00:23-00:33 ... Crowd Noise #1 should have 3 distinct whistles and 2 female shouts from different locations in arena
00:32-00:50 ... Percussion toward front wall, convincingly-sized drum kit, wood block struck in R Ch should resonate toward back left of hall
00:35:00:40 ... Crowd Noise #2 should have 3-4 distinct voices of varying intensities among other chatter.

Edit:
I'd like to explain my choice of reference material, because it's not a selection one would think to be at the top of anyone's list. It's not particularly dynamic, doesn't have an expansive soundstage, and is of generally mediocre quality. But that's exactly the point. When I voice my system for SS&I, using source material of stellar SQ only results in those types of recordings sounding their best. Poor-to-mediocre recordings suffer. Conversely, using source material of poor quality severely compromises the really good stuff. Some of it boils down to the type of music you listen to most. The rest of it boils down to listening preferences in order of importance: detail, spaciousness, etc. I want most of my collection to sound good so I aim toward warm and comforting, yet still detailed and revealing. I'm extremely familiar with the first minute or two of this track, and have used it for demo work so often I find I cannot listen to casually any longer, as it forces me into analytical mode. In any case, I wanted to use the same main piece for evaluating the Triangle Method as I did to tune the system. There were others involved as well, but this was my go-to reference.


----------



## Talley

Lumen said:


> Just setting the stage  for my future comparisons of triangular mic pattern...
> 
> *My General Impressions of the Triangular Mic Pattern:*
> 2ch - Expanded soundstage in all three dimensions
> 2ch - Increased image focus
> 2ch - Absence of midrange glare or lower treble hardness
> 5.1ch - Major improvements in spaciousness
> 
> *Reference Mic Pattern (unless otherwise specified):*
> 1 location @LP
> 4 locations in rectangular pattern below seat back
> 4 locations in same rectangular pattern above seat back
> 
> *Reference Material (Eagles - "Hotel California" from Hell Freezes Over):*
> 00:15-00:16 ... Someone moans "yeah" at chest level in R channel very deep down in mix (almost inaudible)
> 00:17-00:30 ... Lead guitar with increasingly fast picking should not move or grow/shrink
> 00:23-00:33 ... Crowd Noise #1 should have 3 distinct whistles and 2 female shouts from different locations in arena
> 00:32-00:50 ... Percussion toward front wall, convincingly-sized drum kit, wood block struck in R Ch should resonate toward back left of hall
> 00:35:00:40 ... Crowd Noise #2 should have 3-4 distinct voices of varying intensities among other chatter.


Thanks I'll try it out.


----------



## Lumen

Adding calibrations for Trial 1 & 2 mic patterns led to some interesting impressions I just had to share! And just to recap:
The Trial 1 pattern is 1st location @LP, then 4 random locations below the seatback, and 4 random locations above it. 
The Trial 2 pattern is triangular with 1 location @LP, then 4 along hypotenuse, and 4 above/below/left/right of LP. 
The Trial 3 pattern is triangular with 3 locations @LP, then 6 along hypotenuse. 
The Trial 4 pattern is triangular with 3 location @LP, then 2 along hypotenuse, and 2 to the left and right of LP. 

Without more detailed and rigorous study it's hard to draw solid conclusions. *But it seems that more mic positions along the hypotenuse enhance imaging at the expense of soundstage.* The difference is not night and day, but it's there. Images with very specific size and place within the stage, morph into slightly larger blobs of sound when more mic locations are located off the hypotenuse' axis.

This discovery of a relationship between hypotenuse patterns and SS&I quality developed into a preference. Granted it's a preference over a slight difference, but it's enough of a difference to me. I prefer the dedicated hypotenuse locations for music listening, but for movies I resort to calibrations with randomly added locations. The additional randomizations have another positive effect: they result in tight cohesion of sound transitions between front and surround speaker pairs. That came as a surprise to me, as I didn't even know what was wrong until I heard it reproduced correctly! The purely randomized pattern (Trial #1) had left a hole-in-the-middle effect that Dirac was able to fix using the both the purely hypotenuse pattern (Trial #3), and the randomized hypotenuse pattern (Trials #2 & #4).

A couple more observations:
I found the purely hypotenuse pattern (Trial 3) to be more sensitive to head movement than the randomized hypotenuse patterns (Trials 2 & 4). For instance, sitting up straight to raise one's head above the seatback should drastically change SQ. When sitting up in this manner, the SQ improved for Trials 1 and 2 (higher number of random positions), but degraded for Trials 3 & 4.
I also discovered a strange phenomenon in Trials 2 & 4 related to spaciousness in movie soundtracks. Scenes with high reverb such as in an empty alley or church could sound surreal and even disorienting with my head against the seatback. The effect grew worse with increasing proximity. No such phenomenon was encountered with purely hypotenuse patterns.


----------



## Lumen

Talley said:


> Thanks I'll try it out.


You're welcome. Glad to help, Talley! Let me know if you have any questions about the XMC-1 and we can start a thread somewhere.


----------



## Lumen

I didn't mean to dominate this thread, and encourage anyone having questionable results with their room correction software to give the Triangle Method a try. It made a big improvement in my system and room.


----------



## Talley

still waiting for my dirac live key ugh


----------



## RapalloAV

Lumen said:


> Adding calibrations for Trial 1 & 2 mic patterns led to some interesting impressions I just had to share! And just to recap:
> The Trial 1 pattern is 1st location @LP, then 4 random locations below the seatback, and 4 random locations above it.
> The Trial 2 pattern is triangular with 1 location @LP, then 4 along hypotenuse, and 4 above/below/left/right of LP.
> The Trial 3 pattern is triangular with 3 locations @LP, then 6 along hypotenuse.
> The Trial 4 pattern is triangular with 3 location @LP, then 2 along hypotenuse, and 2 to the left and right of LP.
> 
> Without more detailed and rigorous study it's hard to draw solid conclusions. *But it seems that more mic positions along the hypotenuse enhance imaging at the expense of soundstage.* The difference is not night and day, but it's there. Images with very specific size and place within the stage, morph into slightly larger blobs of sound when more mic locations are located off the hypotenuse' axis.
> 
> This discovery of a relationship between hypotenuse patterns and SS&I quality developed into a preference. Granted it's a preference over a slight difference, but it's enough of a difference to me. I prefer the dedicated hypotenuse locations for music listening, but for movies I resort to calibrations with randomly added locations. The additional randomizations have another positive effect: they result in tight cohesion of sound transitions between front and surround speaker pairs. That came as a surprise to me, as I didn't even know what was wrong until I heard it reproduced correctly! The purely randomized pattern (Trial #1) had left a hole-in-the-middle effect that Dirac was able to fix using the both the purely hypotenuse pattern (Trial #3), and the randomized hypotenuse pattern (Trials #2 & #4).
> 
> A couple more observations:
> I found the purely hypotenuse pattern (Trial 3) to be more sensitive to head movement than the randomized hypotenuse patterns (Trials 2 & 4). For instance, sitting up straight to raise one's head above the seatback should drastically change SQ. When sitting up in this manner, the SQ improved for Trials 1 and 2 (higher number of random positions), but degraded for Trials 3 & 4.
> I also discovered a strange phenomenon in Trials 2 & 4 related to spaciousness in movie soundtracks. Scenes with high reverb such as in an empty alley or church could sound surreal and even disorienting with my head against the seatback. The effect grew worse with increasing proximity. No such phenomenon was encountered with purely hypotenuse patterns.


Do you have any measurements to show before and after with this triangle method?

Where do you do the triangle method if one has four seats across the room and the centre of the room is the arm rests of the two middle seats of the four?


----------



## Lumen

Talley said:


> still waiting for my dirac live key ugh


I think it should only take one or two business days. They'll email an activation key to the address you gave them when you registered online. The suspense must be rough!

Sent from my iPad using HTShack


----------



## Lumen

RapalloAV said:


> Do you have any measurements to show before and after with this triangle method?


Post #107 is a tease isn't it?! Too many for an entire series here. If you let me know what you're interested in, I can post specific graphs. For now, I've included a partial series for Trial #4. Please keep in mind that any correlation between subjective findings and objective data may be purely coincidental. lddude: :devil:

*Sub Location and Orientation Comparison*









*Trial #4 FR Sub Only (DarkBlue=Before / LightBlue=After)*









*Trial #4 FR Sub+Mains (Purple=Before / Green=After)*









*Trial #4 WATERFALL Sub+Mains (Before Dirac)*









*Trial #4 WATERFALL Sub+Mains (After Dirac)*









The following graphs depict smoothing of the crossover region between sub and mains. I didn't know how to do that when I started evaluating the Triangle Method, so I plan to start over. A big effort, but one I believe is important to getting the best system performance. A poorly performing system can hardly be expected to reproduce SS&I nuances. 

*Trial #4 FR Sub+Mains (Pink=0deg Phase / Brown=45deg Phase*








*Trial #4 FR Sub+Mains (90, 135, & 180deg Phase)*


----------



## Talley

Lumen said:


> I think it should only take one or two business days. They'll email an activation key to the address you gave them when you registered online. The suspense must be rough!
> 
> Sent from my iPad using HTShack


Well I got mine used but the guy I bought it from had already purchased it but never used it/registered it and they never sent him the key. SO I'm waiting because they have to send HIM the key first then he's gonna forward it to me.

It's a wait game :hissyfit:


----------



## Lumen

Talley said:


> Well I got mine used but the guy I bought it from had already purchased it but never used it/registered it and they never sent him the key. SO I'm waiting because they have to send HIM the key first then he's gonna forward it to me. It's a wait game :hissyfit:


That explains it then. I was surprised myself to find out the XMC-1 had no autoEQ without Dirac. It still accepts REW filter coefficients, though.

Sent from my iPad using HTShack


----------



## FargateOne

The little kid in me like to play with his new TONKA in his backyard ! ( I am sure thta I am not alone )
I watched the video suggested by Tcarcio. Specially that part where he talk about 2 mics on a dummy head.
If I remember well, Talley tried to EQ (Audyssey ?) with the mic on his head (forgive me if it is not the case and I misunderstood your posts about it).
Anyway, it gives me the following idea that I will try soon hopefully: 3 measures at LCP + 3 along the hypothenuse then, I replace my trepod by yours truly himself sitting at the MLP and 1 more measurement with the mic at my left ear (after putting ear plus of course) + 1 more at the right ear.
Stay tuned for the (subjective) results. !


----------



## AudiocRaver

Wow, talk about covering a lot of ground. Look out, audio geeks at work / play!

Setting up some new speakers for review and decided to move my sub to dead center between the mains, so I am re-running calibrations for nanoAVR-DL for my 5.1 setup and also for the "review speaker" 5.1 setup. Also calibrating Dirac Live full version (upcoming review) on my media server for my 5.1 setup. Might get all that done tonight, so hope to have some data to throw into the mix.

Did one nanoAVR-DL calibration that came out sounding weird, but I'm pretty sure what the problem was, will re-do and report on it later.

One thing I have done, starting with the nanoAVR-DL review awhile back, for the LP measurement(s), to eliminate chair back reflections from that oh-so-critical first measurement, I have a 1 x 8 board about 4 ft long standing up about where my spinal column would be situated but spaced forward 6 inches with a blanket wadded behind it, slanted back slightly, the mic hangs straight down JUST touching the board at the LP height and distance from speakers. The resulting measurement is very flat and very clean of chair reflections. It is like saying, "Dirac, don't worry about my chair reflections on this first measurement, just take care of the room, please." The board is removed for the non-LP measurements, which are all significantly further from the chair back. The one time I did an A-B trial with this technique for first 3 measurements vs no board, I could easily tell the imaging was significantly tighter from the trial WITH board. It was a difference between very good vs very VERY good. But it is a bit of trouble for the gain, so might not be worth it to you, just mentioning it since there is so much experimentation going on. I know Flavio will want to have me flayed, drawn, quartered, and skinned alive for suggesting it, but there you go.

Real mixed feelings about taking measurements while seated, as I reported in the sticky on mic patterns. I got so much variation it seemed pretty fruitless, but ya'll might come up with a solution to that. The board was my closest solution, simulating mic next to ear (board = skull minus all the messy ear flesh), and centered & facing front of room and all, kind of a mono cyclopse Van Gogh approach (MCVG method???).


----------



## AudiocRaver

I have done several Dirac Live calibrations over the last couple of days and will add the following observations to the discussion.


I did not try the right triangle pattern for Dirac Live, but I did one pattern that was smaller, the furthest points from LPC being 1.5 feet away and the closest being about 6 inches away. The resulting sound stage tended to come apart at the seams with very little shifting of the head position.
The tip of the mic hanging against a hard surface such as a board, the MCVG (Mono Cyclops Van Gogh) method:rolleyesno:, really seems to give Dirac Live a kick start in the direction of giving best possible soundstage and imaging (SSI). Here is a photo of my setup for doing that. I have done this a number of times, and it has been the foundation for some very satisfying calibrations. One nice thing is that you can do it once, save the project at that point, and recall it to add other mic pattern variations to as desired.
In reference to the preceding point, I ran one test with the first three measurements taken at the same initial point with the tip of the mic touching the board plus the other 5 random, and another with only the first one measurement taken that way and the other 8 random, random also meaning with no attempt to repeat any kind of pattern between the two tests. Upon comparing those two calibrations, it was extremely difficult to hear any difference between the two. Only with one track was I able to discern a very slight SS&I edge in favor of the 3 initial + 5 random (3+5) approach. It was an extremely subtle difference, and on a different day I might call it the other way.
All my experience indicates that a more broadly spaced, randomized calibrate calibration pattern is better for Dirac Live - just like they say to do. The closest point or points might be a foot away from LPC and the farthest might be as far as three feet away for a single-seat two-channel setup. That might put a measurement point much closer to one of the front mains than the other, which seems counterintuitive, but the Dirac Live algorithm seems to invite this kind of rich variety of data to work with and knows what part of that data is useful and what part is not.

Blanket rolled up behind board to space it from the back of the chair and to absorb/prevent resonances in the board.








Board over blanket, hanging mic with tip of mic just touching the board at the target point, Listening Position Center (LPC). Plumb string behind mic aids position repeatability (non-WAF-approved permanent mark on ceiling above not shown).








Close-up.








String removed for taking of measurement.


----------



## Lumen

Appreciate your expertise, Wayne. Thanks for another insightful write-up. :T


----------



## AudiocRaver

Oops, yeah, photos. Added to the post above.:whistling:

The board is hardwood (not that it matters), 1 in x 10 in x 3 ft.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Also, out of curiosity, I recently ran a calibration with all mic positions except those with the board pointing at the ceiling vs. a calibration with all mic positions hanging, pointing at the floor/chair. The UMIK-1 has enough of a sensitivity drop at HF at 180° that it made quite a difference. Mics pointed at floor picks up less HF info, Dirac compensation made the filter set brighter by probably 3 to 4 dB at HF. With a small-diameter mic - Beyerdynamic MM1 - the difference is very small.


----------



## RapalloAV

AudiocRaver said:


> Also, out of curiosity, I recently ran a calibration with all mic positions except those with the board pointing at the ceiling vs. a calibration with all mic positions hanging, pointing at the floor/chair. The UMIK-1 has enough of a sensitivity drop at HF at 180° that it made quite a difference. Mics pointed at floor picks up less HF info, Dirac compensation made the filter set brighter by probably 3 to 4 dB at HF. With a small-diameter mic - Beyerdynamic MM1 - the difference is very small.


Wayne what are your suggestions when using XT32 in this situation...

Four seats across the room, the centre of the room is between the two inner of the four seats.
My seat is on of those two inner seats.
I take the 1st measurement, one only (call it MLP) between the two inner seats of the four, over arm rest. This gets all the distances and delays correct.
I have always then clustered four measurements within one foot around my seat, one of the two inner seats.
Then the rest within the other four seats....

Is it better to cluster those four measurements round MY seat for imaging or to actually take them dead centre of the room, where the 1st one is done?

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=97377&stc=1&d=1437260445


----------



## AudiocRaver

Beautiful room, Murray.

I would keep the first measurement and all "close clustering" of mic positions together in one group, always. Splitting them only weakens the desired effect.

If your room is larger, as yours appears to be, or if your speakers are horn-loaded tweeters, like Klipsch or the PSA MTM-210, keep that cluster over the center armrest, as you will experience little to no shift in the two-channel center image sitting in either of the two front-center seats.
If the room is smaller, putting you closer to your mains, and with other tweeter types - OIW, you are noticing a larger shift of two-channel center image sitting in one of the two front-center seats - then try clustering on the center of one of those two seats. It will shift the two-channel center image to straight ahead of that seat. The soundstage will be slightly "smushed" to one side, but probably not enough to even notice it.
If you only do movies there, keep the mic position clustering over the center armrest, the center channel speaker will keep center images properly placed and the overall balance will stay centered right for the room.


----------



## RapalloAV

AudiocRaver said:


> Beautiful room, Murray.
> 
> I would keep the first measurement and all "close clustering" of mic positions together in one group, always. Splitting them only weakens the desired effect.
> 
> If your room is larger, as yours appears to be, or if your speakers are horn-loaded tweeters, like Klipsch or the PSA MTM-210, keep that cluster over the center armrest, as you will experience little to no shift in the two-channel center image sitting in either of the two front-center seats.
> If the room is smaller, putting you closer to your mains, and with other tweeter types - OIW, you are noticing a larger shift of two-channel center image sitting in one of the two front-center seats - then try clustering on the center of one of those two seats. It will shift the two-channel center image to straight ahead of that seat. The soundstage will be slightly "smushed" to one side, but probably not enough to even notice it.
> If you only do movies there, keep the mic position clustering over the center armrest, the center channel speaker will keep center images properly placed and the overall balance will stay centered right for the room.


Thanks for that Wayne.
My room is 4M wide by 6M deep, the middle row (MLP) is the middle of the three rows of seating.

I will re do my cluster in the centre of the room over the arm rest, measure and see if there is a difference.

*TOP IMAGE*
This is what I get with XT32 on and the cluster over just one of the middle seats. Left, right and sub, crossovers all 80Hz

*LOWER IMAGE*
This is what I get with XT32 ON and if I change just the L&R to 120Hz and the centre channel to 80Hz, a very different result.
Both measurements are taken from the same spot in one of the centre seats. Do you think its better to keep the crossovers set this way considering the result is much smoother?

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=97393&stc=1&d=1437276658

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=97401&stc=1&d=1437276791


----------



## AudiocRaver

RapalloAV said:


> *TOP IMAGE*
> This is what I get with XT32 on and the cluster over just one of the middle seats. Left, right and sub, crossovers all 80Hz
> 
> *LOWER IMAGE*
> This is what I get with XT32 ON and if I change just the L&R to 120Hz and the centre channel to 80Hz, a very different result.
> Both measurements are taken from the same spot in one of the centre seats. Do you think its better to keep the crossovers set this way considering the result is much smoother?


I need a bit more information. Is each plot of one single speaker + sub, or of L+R+C all running at once with sub? It kinda looks like the latter, which is not a very meaningful measurement. We recommend a separate measurement plot for L+sub, one for R+sub, and one for C+sub. Beg pardon if this is stuff you already know, just being thorough. Can you explain in more detail what speaker is involved in each of the measurements?


----------



## RapalloAV

AudiocRaver said:


> I need a bit more information. Is each plot of one single speaker + sub, or of L+R+C all running at once with sub? It kinda looks like the latter, which is not a very meaningful measurement. We recommend a separate measurement plot for L+sub, one for R+sub, and one for C+sub. Beg pardon if this is stuff you already know, just being thorough. Can you explain in more detail what speaker is involved in each of the measurements?


Wayne its actually mentioned in the text. The 1st pix is just L+R+Sub.
The second pix is L+R+C + sub


----------



## AudiocRaver

RapalloAV said:


> Wayne its actually mentioned in the text. The 1st pix is just L+R+Sub.
> The second pix is L+R+C + sub


That is what I thought I read, I just wanted to be sure.

The series of notches in the first measurement is commonly referred to as comb filter effect, resulting from two signals mixing together acoustically in a way that there is cancellation at all those frequencies. Neither of the plots is very useful to draw conclusions from, I am afraid.

Try taking measurements for left + sub, center + sub, and right + sub, each in a separate plot.


----------



## RapalloAV

AudiocRaver said:


> That is what I thought I read, I just wanted to be sure.
> 
> The series of notches in the first measurement is commonly referred to as comb filter effect, resulting from two signals mixing together acoustically in a way that there is cancellation at all those frequencies. Neither of the plots is very useful to draw conclusions from, I am afraid.
> 
> Try taking measurements for left + sub, center + sub, and right + sub, each in a separate plot.


Ok Wayne I will do that tomorrow and post. Shall I do it with XT32 on or off?


----------



## RapalloAV

AudiocRaver said:


> That is what I thought I read, I just wanted to be sure.
> 
> The series of notches in the first measurement is commonly referred to as comb filter effect, resulting from two signals mixing together acoustically in a way that there is cancellation at all those frequencies. .


Forgot to ask:
Can this comb filtering be from the mic measurements taken only 7" away from the seat back?
That's where the ears are....


----------



## lesmor

Looking at the graphs it looks like you are using XTZ analyser pro and the *anechoic* setting?
Any reason why you use this setting?
Beautiful room by the way


----------



## RapalloAV

lesmor said:


> Looking at the graphs it looks like you are using XTZ analyser pro and the *anechoic* setting?
> Any reason why you use this setting?
> Beautiful room by the way


I am using XTZ pro. Am I using the wrong setting, can you please tell me the setting I should be using please?


----------



## lesmor

RapalloAV said:


> I am using XTZ pro. Am I using the wrong setting, can you please tell me the setting I should be using please?


The anechoic setting measurement = "No Room Interference"

The ambient setting is = "Room Information" that is the one I would use although you will probably be shocked at the graph compared to what you posted.

The raw setting is = Untreated (Full FFT) which is a higher resolution but the results need to be properly evaluated

So Ambient is probably your best option
IIRC you can just click the anechoic tab and chose a different setting without having to redo the sweep


----------



## RapalloAV

lesmor said:


> The anechoic setting measurement = "No Room Interference"
> 
> The ambient setting is = "Room Information" that is the one I would use although you will probably be shocked at the graph compared to what you posted.
> 
> The raw setting is = Untreated (Full FFT) which is a higher resolution but the results need to be properly evaluated
> 
> So Ambient is probably your best option
> IIRC you can just click the anechoic tab and chose a different setting without having to redo the sweep


Many thanks for that info, I'll make sure I use Ambient next time, hopefully tomorrow.


----------



## AudiocRaver

RapalloAV said:


> Ok Wayne I will do that tomorrow and post. Shall I do it with XT32 on or off?


XT32 on, from the listening position (LP), right where the center of your head would be.



RapalloAV said:


> Forgot to ask:
> Can this comb filtering be from the mic measurements taken only 7" away from the seat back?
> That's where the ears are....


That can cause a small dip in the response at 1 kHz or so, nothing like what these plots show. That amount of cancellation indicates two sources running with direct cancellation. The third source (2nd plot) adds enough complexity to disrupt the cancellation effect somewhat, but the plot is no more useful.


----------



## RapalloAV

AudiocRaver said:


> XT32 on, from the listening position (LP), right where the center of your head would be.
> 
> 
> 
> That can cause a small dip in the response at 1 kHz or so, nothing like what these plots show. That amount of cancellation indicates two sources running with direct cancellation. The third source (2nd plot) adds enough complexity to disrupt the cancellation effect somewhat, but the plot is no more useful.


Wayne here are the measurements taken with the cluster of 4 at one of the middle seats as I had always done, the 1st one is taken dead centre of the room over the arm rest. They are only left and right +Sub, plus a combination of L+R+C+Sub. There is no single centre channel as I cant select that with the new dolby ARVs. I have the Marantz AV8802 pre pro.

Later I will re do these with the cluster over dead centre of the room, the middle arm rest.


http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=97473&stc=1&d=1437348268
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=97489&stc=1&d=1437348268
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=97497&stc=1&d=1437348268
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=97505&stc=1&d=1437348268
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=97513&stc=1&d=1437348268
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=97521&stc=1&d=1437348268


1st pix cluster taken from one of middle seats

SUBS on for all these, EQ ON - NO separate centre channel as cant select that on the 8802

2nd pix Left green, yellow right - eq on from middle of room over arm rest
3rd pix left green, right dotted from middle seat
4th pix left green, dotted right from end seat
5th pix L+R+C+SUB from end seat
6th pix L+R+C+SUB from middle seat


----------



## Talley

haven't gotten my Dirac Full license yet but I tried out the SE. Pleased with the results on SS&I out of the box with a single mic position. Although the bass seemed to be lacking a bit. 

I have so much work still to do... need to hang all the treatment I've built and build more.


----------



## AudiocRaver

*RapalloAV:* Interesting. Of course the first measurement looks the best. The second isn't bad. Wouldn't it be great to get that first curve at the actual LP!!

I suggest you try this: Take the first five measurements over the seat where you want the sound to be the best. The first measurement right where the center of your head would be, not over the armrest, but centered over that seat, and the next four measurements clustered around that first measurement, then the final measurements where you normally would.

But pay attention also to the way it sounds. How precise is the image clarity? How well defined is the soundstage? How does that compare after the suggested setup compared to the way it sounds now? Good measurements are important, but I will take an imperfect FR curve with great soundstage and imaging any day.

That is my suggestion. But if you are happy with the way it sounds now, what you are getting really looks pretty good.


----------



## RapalloAV

AudiocRaver said:


> *RapalloAV:* Interesting. Of course the first measurement looks the best. The second isn't bad. Wouldn't it be great to get that first curve at the actual LP!!
> 
> I suggest you try this: Take the first five measurements over the seat where you want the sound to be the best. The first measurement right where the center of your head would be, not over the armrest, but centered over that seat, and the next four measurements clustered around that first measurement, then the final measurements where you normally would.
> 
> But pay attention also to the way it sounds. How precise is the image clarity? How well defined is the soundstage? How does that compare after the suggested setup compared to the way it sounds now? Good measurements are important, but I will take an imperfect FR curve with great soundstage and imaging any day.
> 
> That is my suggestion. But if you are happy with the way it sounds now, what you are getting really looks pretty good.


Wayne, the first cluster of four mic positions were done from the seat I sit in, not over the arm rest. These are the measurements you have just looked at.


Ive just finished doing another 1st cluster set over the arm rest in the centre of the room which Im about to post. Then you can tell me which set you regard as looking the best....

_*Sorry I just re read your post. I now see you want me to try the 1st measurement from the MLP (centre seat) not over the arm rest. I will try that and report back.*_


----------



## RapalloAV

AudiocRaver said:


> *RapalloAV:* Interesting. Of course the first measurement looks the best. The second isn't bad. Wouldn't it be great to get that first curve at the actual LP!!
> 
> I suggest you try this: Take the first five measurements over the seat where you want the sound to be the best. The first measurement right where the center of your head would be, not over the armrest, but centered over that seat, and the next four measurements clustered around that first measurement, then the final measurements where you normally would.
> 
> But pay attention also to the way it sounds. How precise is the image clarity? How well defined is the soundstage? How does that compare after the suggested setup compared to the way it sounds now? Good measurements are important, but I will take an imperfect FR curve with great soundstage and imaging any day.
> 
> That is my suggestion. But if you are happy with the way it sounds now, what you are getting really looks pretty good.


Before I do your suggested new measures here are the new ones I did today. This was with the mic over the arm rest in the middle of the room for the first measure and the cluster of 4. The others were done over the rest of the four seats. 

EQ on.

Ist pix from the centre of the room (arm rest) Green is left speaker, dotted right (same for all readings). I always end up with dips in the sub region which is a major shame. I cant move seats or subs to correct this sadly. I really don't know how much better it would sound if it was perfect...onder:

2nd pix middle seat

3rd pix end seat.
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=97593&stc=1&d=1437372098

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=97593&stc=1&d=1437372098


http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=97601&stc=1&d=1437372098


----------



## AudiocRaver

RapalloAV said:


> Before I do your suggested new measures here are the new ones I did today...


The first measurement spot probably sounds pretty nice. Too bad no one can sit there.:bigsmile: It has its imperfections, true, and you can chase those to the ends of the earth, as some people do, and end up with very little audible difference. Not saying you wouldn't be able to hear it if you could get rid of those final dips, but the question is, is it worth the trouble? With the limitations you stated, probably not. It probably sounds pretty nice just the way it is, from the looks of that measurement.

The second measurement, where someone actually sits, is not bad, but not as nice as it could be. Actually, even if you were to listen with your head over the arm rest for a minute, then shift to normal sitting position, although you would be able to tell the difference, after a minute or so of sitting in your normal position you would forget all about that difference. So what you have would not be too bad if you were stuck with it. But I hope you can do better.

I am very curious to see what you get with all five of those first measurements taken over the seat, as you are intending to try next. While I can be a stickler of an idealist about some things, I have my practical side too, and I'm a big believer that the best sound in the room should be where one person's head and ears will be to enjoy it. As I hinted in an earlier post, most home cinema enthusiasts will admit, when pressed on it, that it is rare there is more than one person in the room who really cares about great sound. With that in mind, doing all 5 of those measurements over the actual seat position, hopefully, will make that the best sounding spot in the room, your own seat of course, with perhaps a tiny sacrifice in sound quality elsewhere, but probably not a perceptible one. Treat yourself. You can always let someone else sit in that seat to show off the best sound in the room. As it is, the best sound in the room is where no one can sit now. That seems a shame.

I look forward to your next results.

Also your impressions on the quality of soundstage and imaging in that one best seat after your next calibration.


----------



## FargateOne

AudiocRaver said:


> *RapalloAV:* (...)
> Good measurements are important, but I will take an imperfect FR curve with great soundstage and imaging any day.
> (...)
> .


Me too, by far. And I totally agree with Audiocraver: I am the only one who cares about the sound of my HT (nothing to compare with what I see here ) but my wife and chidren are happy with the sound where they are !
If I improve my listening experience at my MLCP, every body else take profit of it.


----------



## Talley

Whats funny is I don't even look at the FR response. I run the test and listen to it. My ears cannot hear a graph.

I think looking at the graph leads to too much errors really when the reality is you don't hear it.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Talley said:


> Whats funny is I don't even look at the FR response. I run the test and listen to it. My ears cannot hear a graph.
> 
> I think looking at the graph leads to too much errors really when the reality is you don't hear it.


There is a lot of truth in that, Talley. I think it is good to listen before looking at measurements for that very reason. Then there are times I will see something in the measurement that I missed and will pay closer attention to it and it might even sway my judgment a bit. Other times I will see the measurement and think, _Eh, it sounds just fine to me._


----------



## lesmor

Why don't you post some graphs using "room analyser" from the XTZ Pro as that is the main feature of the product.
A few people have had success at smoothing crossover dips by adjusting the speaker distances


----------



## RapalloAV

AudiocRaver said:


> The first measurement spot probably sounds pretty nice. Too bad no one can sit there.:bigsmile: It has its imperfections, true, and you can chase those to the ends of the earth, as some people do, and end up with very little audible difference. Not saying you wouldn't be able to hear it if you could get rid of those final dips, but the question is, is it worth the trouble? With the limitations you stated, probably not. It probably sounds pretty nice just the way it is, from the looks of that measurement.
> 
> The second measurement, where someone actually sits, is not bad, but not as nice as it could be. Actually, even if you were to listen with your head over the arm rest for a minute, then shift to normal sitting position, although you would be able to tell the difference, after a minute or so of sitting in your normal position you would forget all about that difference. So what you have would not be too bad if you were stuck with it. But I hope you can do better.
> 
> I am very curious to see what you get with all five of those first measurements taken over the seat, as you are intending to try next. While I can be a stickler of an idealist about some things, I have my practical side too, and I'm a big believer that the best sound in the room should be where one person's head and ears will be to enjoy it. As I hinted in an earlier post, most home cinema enthusiasts will admit, when pressed on it, that it is rare there is more than one person in the room who really cares about great sound. With that in mind, doing all 5 of those measurements over the actual seat position, hopefully, will make that the best sounding spot in the room, your own seat of course, with perhaps a tiny sacrifice in sound quality elsewhere, but probably not a perceptible one. Treat yourself. You can always let someone else sit in that seat to show off the best sound in the room. As it is, the best sound in the room is where no one can sit now. That seems a shame.
> 
> I look forward to your next results.
> 
> Also your impressions on the quality of soundstage and imaging in that one best seat after your next calibration.


Wayne I took the 1st cluster of measurements from one of the middle seats rather than over the arm rest. To me the results look similar when measuring with XTZ from that same seat as when I did XT32 from the middle arm rest.:rolleyesno:

When I listened the imaging sounded the same as when it was over the middle arm rest. Imaging has never really been the problem, it always sounds amazing in my room.....

To me the problem is those two horrible dips in the MLP, Ive run hundreds of EQs and I cant improve them more than what I have with any mic pattern. It really really depresses me as Im not one to give up. Although the sound is great, I hate seeing those dips in the measurements.... I was fine until I started measuring, after getting measuring equipment I got depressed :scratch:

I would love to improve this if I could someway. Any help would be appreciated. Ive moved the subs within the area they have to stay, I have them in the best spot. I have all the bass trapping the room can take, on the back wall and behind the screen, miles of it! I cant move the seats they are on risers.....

If you go into my link on the signature and scroll below the first set if pictures you will see all the work we have done in the second rebuild, acoustic treatments etc etc...

I have since put the 1st cluster back over the middle arm rest since I don't hear any difference with imaging when done over the middle seat. This way I have all the levels and distances equal for both sides of the room. Plus it makes seats on the L&R sides of the room the same...

I wonder if most people have results that are similar or worse?
How many have NO dips in the bass region, I wonder what the % is???
*
Take EQ out for a minute..........:*The worst thing is I can make the middle row sound really good with this EQ, but it makes the back and front row HORRIBLE!
If I EQ all three rows the middle row is POOR on bass, it disappears!

When I turn OFF EQ, the sound seems very even over every row, all seats are great, but imaging and clarity of speech are lost. Ive tried to use the tone controls till the cows come home to make the speech sound like it does with EQ, but I just cant get that magic ingredient, so I go back to EQ with a good sounding middle row and poor "other" rows...

Nothing is easy with this old problem...


----------



## RapalloAV

lesmor said:


> Why don't you post some graphs using "room analyser" from the XTZ Pro as that is the main feature of the product.
> A few people have had success at smoothing crossover dips by adjusting the speaker distances


Ok I will do this today and see what you think. I just want to improve those two dips but don't know how.


----------



## RapalloAV

These were the measurements I did last night with using one of the middle seats as the 1st cluster of mic positions rather than over the middle arm rest. This is really the true MLP.

To me the measurements look similar to when I took them over the arm rest. Imaging sounds exactly the same to me, no improvement, for some unknown reason the highs seem too bright to my ears, why I wonder???

Again the green is the left speaker, dotted right. EQ on.
1st pix over the middle seat MLP
2an pix over the end seat
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=97625&stc=1&d=1437428387


http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=97633&stc=1&d=1437428387


----------



## AudiocRaver

Your story is an all too common one, I am afraid. The relationship between frequency response in one part of the room relative to another part of the room is fixed, room correction can only juggle the two and try to find a reasonable balance, but can never fix or eliminate the differences.



RapalloAV said:


> When I listened the imaging sounded the same as when it was over the middle arm rest. Imaging has never really been the problem, it always sounds amazing in my room.....


I am glad that imaging is not a problem. Based on what you have said, I agree it is best to leave the cluster of five measurement points over the armrest so that proper balance and timing is maintained for the room.



> To me the problem is those two horrible dips in the MLP, Ive run hundreds of EQs and I cant improve them more than what I have with any mic pattern. It really really depresses me as Im not one to give up. Although the sound is great, I hate seeing those dips in the measurements.... I was fine until I started measuring, after getting measuring equipment I got depressed :scratch:
> 
> I would love to improve this if I could someway. Any help would be appreciated. Ive moved the subs within the area they have to stay, I have them in the best spot. I have all the bass trapping the room can take, on the back wall and behind the screen, miles of it! I cant move the seats they are on risers.....


Very few have no dips in the bass region. Bass traps do not get rid of dips, they help get rid of peaks. Getting rid of dips takes repositioning or addition of subwoofers. If your subwoofer positions are fixed, then you are stuck with those dips. Take the Zen approach and let it go.

Have you tried facing the subwoofer drivers toward the wall with a very small gap, like a four inch gap? That is my only suggestion. The dips that you have look like they are caused by reflection and cancellation from the nearest walls near the subwoofer drivers. If the driver is close to the wall then the frequency of the dip increases and the cancellation amount decreases and they will pretty much disappear if that is indeed the cause. I have seen it work wonders.



> I have since put the 1st cluster back over the middle arm rest since I don't hear any difference with imaging when done over the middle seat. This way I have all the levels and distances equal for both sides of the room. Plus it makes seats on the L&R sides of the room the same...


Good.



> I wonder if most people have results that are similar or worse?
> How many have NO dips in the bass region, I wonder what the % is???
> *
> Take EQ out for a minute..........:*The worst thing is I can make the middle row sound really good with this EQ, but it makes the back and front row HORRIBLE!
> If I EQ all three rows the middle row is POOR on bass, it disappears!
> 
> When I turn OFF EQ, the sound seems very even over every row, all seats are great, but imaging and clarity of speech are lost.


This tells me that the room is constructed right, and that you are trying to accomplish too much with Audyssey correction and that is what is throwing off the balance across the room. Shift to a smaller mic calibration pattern with the cluster of 5 over the armrest and the remaining calibration positions only including the two seats adjacent to that center armrest, a very close-knit calibration pattern focused right around the MLP area. That should give you the focused imaging and soundstage without messing up the rest of the room too much.


----------



## Talley

There is only one perfect spot in a room in any audio system no matter how many speakers are involved.


----------



## RapalloAV

AudiocRaver said:


> Your story is an all too common one, I am afraid. The relationship between frequency response in one part of the room relative to another part of the room is fixed, room correction can only juggle the two and try to find a reasonable balance, but can never fix or eliminate the differences.
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad that imaging is not a problem. Based on what you have said, I agree it is best to leave the cluster of five measurement points over the armrest so that proper balance and timing is maintained for the room.
> 
> 
> 
> Very few have no dips in the bass region. Bass traps do not get rid of dips, they help get rid of peaks. Getting rid of dips takes repositioning or addition of subwoofers. If your subwoofer positions are fixed, then you are stuck with those dips. Take the Zen approach and let it go.
> 
> Have you tried facing the subwoofer drivers toward the wall with a very small gap, like a four inch gap? That is my only suggestion. The dips that you have look like they are caused by reflection and cancellation from the nearest walls near the subwoofer drivers. If the driver is close to the wall then the frequency of the dip increases and the cancellation amount decreases and they will pretty much disappear if that is indeed the cause. I have seen it work wonders.
> 
> 
> 
> Good.
> 
> 
> 
> This tells me that the room is constructed right, and that you are trying to accomplish too much with Audyssey correction and that is what is throwing off the balance across the room. Shift to a smaller mic calibration pattern with the cluster of 5 over the armrest and the remaining calibration positions only including the two seats adjacent to that center armrest, a very close-knit calibration pattern focused right around the MLP area. That should give you the focused imaging and soundstage without messing up the rest of the room too much.


Ok Wayne Ive turned the two end subs facing the side walls and measured. To me they look a little bit better than yesterday, please tell me what you think? I noticed the dip isn't as wide as it was. XTZ always comes up saying not finding any room modes. Ive listened to the sound, imaging is as always PERFECT! Yet there seems less HUGE bass, is this because its probably a little smoother than yesterday? It does however seem cleaner and faster..... Ive had to bump up the subs about +4db to get the extra bass I once had.

1st pix end subs facing wall.

2nd pix full range eq on and off - subs on

3rd pix green left . blue right - subs on

4th pix, combined left and right on together plus subs (eq on and off)

_BTW I have tried moving the centre pair of subs away from the middle of the room, the measurements are better with them both together like this._


----------



## RapalloAV

Ok Wayne Ive just put all the four subs facing forward back to they used to be. After listening to all my test discs I just couldn't get any bass from the subs when facing the side walls. They just really lacked any impact or punch!!!!! I kept turning them up to try and get back what I used to have, I was up to +6db and still I had WAY less than when the subs face forward and set on zero db. What a disappointment. Why would they be so bad this way??? 

I turned them to the front and re did XT32 and bingo, all the bass was big again with power and punch and only on zero. This might be where I now have to live with things apart from ripping the whole place to pieces or buying a new house and rebuilding a new HT without any mistakes....

Oh well, thanks for all your help and input, you have been great!

If there is anything else you can think of please yell out! :T


----------



## AudiocRaver

Indeed, there was not the improvement I had hoped for why turning the subs. In fact, the narrower notches turned into a broad depression, not an improvement at all. I agree with your decision to leave them in their original position.

Trying to do anything further would probably involve having individual time delay controls for each of the four subwoofers, more detailed measurement capability with impulse response and precise time delay measurement possible, all with quite a learning curve. And even then, with very limited ability to place the subs optimally, there is still no certainty in achieving a big improvement. I wish I could say otherwise.

You have a wonderful room and excellent sound, and it might be that you have reached the point of diminishing returns for your efforts that makes this a perfect place to call it good.


----------



## RapalloAV

AudiocRaver said:


> Indeed, there was not the improvement I had hoped for why turning the subs. In fact, the narrower notches turned into a broad depression, not an improvement at all. I agree with your decision to leave them in their original position.
> 
> Trying to do anything further would probably involve having individual time delay controls for each of the four subwoofers, more detailed measurement capability with impulse response and precise time delay measurement possible, all with quite a learning curve. And even then, with very limited ability to place the subs optimally, there is still no certainty in achieving a big improvement. I wish I could say otherwise.
> 
> You have a wonderful room and excellent sound, and it might be that you have reached the point of diminishing returns for your efforts that makes this a perfect place to call it good.


Thank you so much Wayne, you have been an excellent help to me and your words are always encouraging. I wish I could go further and even try all the time delays you hinted upon, but it looks like that is way beyond my knowledge. I wish there was someone in NZ that had the knowledge to help me, but we very much lack people here with knowledge like you.

I have a couple of "other" small tests Im going to try tonight and will get back to you if anything is promising....


----------



## FargateOne

Aaaah ! There are a lot of passionate people here. I had forgotten my own teen age passion for music 2.0 system for so long (I once had the best B&W speakers in town).
Now that I came back to my first loves (but 5.1 instead of 2.0) , I must keep in my mind this french say that we have "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" Free translation: the best is the ennemy of better...


----------



## RapalloAV

Wayne you might like to see the improvements I have since you last heard from me. I have been adding extra bass traps to my under stage area where the subs are. Every day I have added more and more 4" dense rockwool behind the subs on the front wall and the sides. Behind the subs its full to the thickness on 16", the two sides have 12". I have also fitted another trap behind the back row of seats to the thickness of 4", this area has already a number of bass traps but its now full, there is no more room. 

As every day Ive added rockwool Ive taken readings, each day Ive seen the peeks in the bass come down further and further, its been amazing. Each day when I listen its obvious the improvement. This has given me the incentive each day to go out and buy more rockwool and add as much to the boundary corners I can. Ive pretty much finished, there is one last two corners in behind the screen only on the side corner walls, there are bass traps on the main front wall with membrane over. I might do this last bit to 4" thick.

Take a look and see what you think.

1st pix shows the rockwool stuffing started
2nd pix the measurements I took on Sunday after two days of stuffing. L&R + subs EQ on
3rd pix Tuesday after two more days of stuffing. L&R + subs with EQ ON. (top dotted EQ OFF)
4th pix Sunday Room An L&R + subs 12 ppo smoothing EQ ON.
5th pix Tuesday Room An L&R + subs 12 ppo smoothing GREEN EQ OFF - BLUE YELLOW EQ ON (you can see here the bass is smoother than sundays)
6th pix Tuesday Room An L&R + subs 3 ppo smoothing GREEN EQ OFF - BLUE YELLOW EQ ON.

Overall this does show how much bass trapping reduces peeks.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=98233&stc=1&d=1438062584
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=98241&stc=1&d=1438062584
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=98249&stc=1&d=1438062584
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=98257&stc=1&d=1438062584
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=98265&stc=1&d=1438062584
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=98273&stc=1&d=1438062584


----------



## AudiocRaver

Impressive, both your dedication and patience and the results. You have made quite an improvement.


----------



## D Bone

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> In that case I expect this is the source of the problem where imaging is concerned. Back in the mid ‘90s when I moved up to high-end equalizers I learned pretty quickly that applying different filters to the left and right speakers above about 3-400 Hz whacked out imaging. I thought perhaps it was because I only had 1/3-octave equalizers at the time, but in recent years, others here on this Forum have confirmed that even with precise parametric equalization they’ve had the same experiences as well.
> 
> What a lot of people don’t know is that equalizers accomplish response changes by introducing phase shift at and around the filter’s center frequency setting. With analog equalizers this is accomplished with capacitors and inductors, and with digital equalizers it’s done with taps on a digital delay line. But the fact is, without phase shift equalizers would not work at all. So basically, equalizers use time domain changes to accomplish frequency domain changes.
> 
> So why did the mismatched filters mess with imaging? Because a phase change was introduced to one speaker in a certain frequency range, but not the other. Either speaker played independently would sound identical because frequency response was appropriately matched, but played together you get the phase differences and the resulting dislocalized imaging. This is why I’ve typically recommended for people to use matching filters above ~3-400 Hz for the left and right speakers when performing manual equalizing.
> 
> The next issue I see, unfortunately, is the wonders of modern computing power. Before the advent of cheap processing, room analysis and equalization was limited to 1/3-octave resolution from both hardware RTA devices and equalizers. That seems quaint and outdated these days: Chris Kyriakakis claims Audyssey MultEQ XT can introduce hundreds of filters, and MultEQ XT32 thousands, to “make corrections to narrow peaks and dips in response,” in his words.
> 
> But is this really necessary? Anyone who’s ever had hands-on use of a good parametric EQ (or possibly even a cheap one) will tell you that filters with tiny bandwidth and gain settings get you nothing audible with a program signal. Has Mr. Kyriakakis spent more time in a computer lab than hands-on with actual hardware in a playback system? As I mentioned years ago in my minimal EQ article, what’s the point of peppering the signal chain with a bunch of inaudible filters?
> 
> Audyssey utilizes FIR filters which are designed to address time domain (phase) as well as frequency response issues, but the phase issues the filters address are from the room. Maybe I don’t know enough about EQ filtering (very likely), but filters that address phase generated by the room (which isn’t necessarily all bad, by the way) seem to be of diminished effectiveness if they in turn introduce phase of their own.
> 
> Wayne’s research from his excellent Audyssey MultEQ FAQ and Setup Guide has confirmed that multiple spread-out mic locations might give improved frequency response over a broad area, but that imaging suffers as a result. I expect the cause of the poor imaging is that this approach results in drastically mismatched filtering between the left and right channels (someone could probably loop an Audyssey-equipped AVR through REW and confirm this).
> 
> Thus Wayne’s recommendation on tight mic spacing when running Audyssey is a step in the right direction: Frequency response isn’t going to change significantly a few inches this way or that, at least above ~500 Hz. As a result, Audyssey probably performs less aggressive equalizing – hopefully only a few dozen filters instead of hundreds or thousands – and the result is filters that better match for the left and right speakers.
> 
> But is even this tight mic spacing necessary? Try this little test: Turn off the sub, disconnect the left or right speaker, play a broadband pink noise signal through the remaining one, and move your head a few inches away from, and around, the dead-center position – i.e. places where you might locate the Audyssey mic for a tight measurement pattern. Do you hear any audible change in the way the speaker sounds? Not likely, or if so not enough matter. How ‘bout when you move from the center seat on the sofa to the left or right? Probably the same. (Note, we only use one speaker for this because with both you’d hear a change with a mono pink noise signal once moved off-axis from dead center, due to timing [phase].)
> 
> The fact is that measurement mics are more sensitive to subtle location changes than the ear. And thanks to the power of cheap processing, that hypersensitivity can be translated to scary graphs that show visible changes in frequency response that the ears simply ignore. Or to a processor that generates “correction” filters to address problems that aren’t audible (introducing phase in the process). So even with the tight spacing technique, with the mic at locations where you can’t hear a difference yourself, Audyssey most likely is still introducing filtering that is offering no audible benefit – at least some, but probably a lot.
> 
> So the single-location approach to Audyssey and similar systems makes perfect sense to me. And the experiences of Wayne in his exhaustive evaluations and Talley’s experiences in this thread seem to bear this out.
> 
> I’m not saying here that Audyssey and similar systems are overblown and useless, only that some people’s experiences with them only seems to reinforce the idea that minimal EQ is more effective than hundreds or thousands of filters.
> 
> Wayne, for your next test maybe you can compare Audyssey or Dirac to manual equalization with a first-class parametric EQ and see if the former really delivers better results, either with response or imagining. :T
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


Enjoyed this post, as you articulately described what I hear when I use Audyssey XT. I called it "too focused, pointy and one dimensional" all of which disappears when I turn it off.

I have since gone with an AntiMode Cinema for my PSA XV15 sub and have increased the x-over to 100hz, while using my AVR's onboard EQ to make a couple of cuts at 250-500hz in both L/R pairs of front and surround speakers. ( surrounds need the deepest cuts do to their placement ).

I am the happiest I've been with my system, ever!


----------



## AudiocRaver

> Wayne A. Pflughaupt wrote:
> 
> Wayne, for your next test maybe you can compare Audyssey or Dirac to manual equalization with a first-class parametric EQ and see if the former really delivers better results, either with response or imagining.


I have essentially done this, back in the nanoAVR DL review time frame, comparing Dirac Live to my best hand-tuned equalization with only three bands of parametric EQ applied equally on the left and right channels (stereo mode). I was very pleased with the hand-tuned results, great soundstage and imaging, good frequency response, a very lively and pleasing presentation. Then I tried the nanoAVR DL. There was a marked improvement, not night and day, but significant enough that I have not tried to go back to hand-tuning since.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

AudiocRaver said:


> Then I tried the nanoAVR DL. There was a marked improvement, not night and day, but significant enough that I have not tried to go back to hand-tuning since.


Sweet. :T I just wish they’d make one that could connect between a pre-pro and amplifiers.

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## bkeeler10

They do make one like that. Its called the DDRC-88A. 8 channels of analog line-level input, convert to digital, perform Dirac processing, convert to analog line level.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Awesome, thanks! $1000 price might seem steep, but it averages out to only a bit over $100 per channel. A first-class analog parametric EQ would cost way more than that. :T

My only concern would be that miniDSP doesn't offer any S/N specs on it... 

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## AudiocRaver

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Awesome, thanks! $1000 price might seem steep, but it averages out to only a bit over $100 per channel. A first-class analog parametric EQ would cost way more than that. :T
> 
> My only concern would be that miniDSP doesn't offer any S/N specs on it...
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


The DDRC-88A Product Brief does give SNR numbers, in the 105 dB range.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Thanks, I didn’t notice that because they put the figures in a peculiar place (audio inputs / outputs), not as a stand-alone specification as is usually done.

I’m sure the DDRC-88 is a fine unit (I’d certainly buy it if I had a need for it), but I’m always concerned about “open-ended” figures like that (for lack of a better term). Without a qualification of dBA, dBu or some other accepted reference, it’s a meaningless figure, the kind of thing you typically see with the specifications of cheap “off-brands.” I’d certainly expect better than that from miniDSP, considering their excellent reputation.

Regards, 
Wayne


----------

