# Audyssey MultEQ FAQ and Setup Guide Discussion Thread



## AudiocRaver

*Discussion Thread* for the Home Theater Shack *Audyssey MultEQ FAQ and Setup Guide.*

Audyssey MultEQ is a room- and speaker-tuning technology that is built into many Audio-Video Receivers. It is designed to be simple to use with minimal special knowledge, and it is a powerful tool that has smoothed out the sound of many a home theater system. But getting good results with Audyssey MultEQ does take some careful attention to detail. And it is possible to get marginal or even poor results in some situations. The purpose of the Home Theater Shack _Audyssey MultEQ FAQ and Setup Guide_ is to help users maximize their chance of having a frustration-free, successful Audyssey MultEQ tuning experience.

*This thread is now open for discussion about the Home Theater Shack Audyssey MultEQ FAQ and Setup Guide.*


----------



## Sonnie

You did an awesome job Wayne... very detailed and thorough. It should be a valuable asset to many users.

A BIG Thanks! :T :T :T


----------



## AustinJerry

Congratulations on a nice job!


----------



## RapalloAV

My first post here.

Thank you for the very informative Audyssey instructions. There are so many new points I have never seen before, especially on mic placement which I'm eager to try.

I just don't understand what some of the positions mean, can you clarify please, I'm using XT32?

*Base Setup Mic Pattern - MultEQ XT32, MultEQ XT, MultEQ. Use for step 2 of this Process: PLP center, 3 in forward, 3 in up, 3 in up & 3 in forward, 3 in L, 3 in R, 6 in L, 6 in R*
What does 3 in up mean?
3 in forward?
etc etc...


----------



## AudiocRaver

AustinJerry said:


> I am a long-time Audyssey user, and avid participant in AVS forums for Audyssey and the Audyssey Pro Kit. We have developed an Audyssey set-up guide, and FAQ's for both Audyssey and the Pro Kit. I just read your Guide in its entirety, and congratulate you on a vey good job. It is easy to understand and covers the appropriate topics in the right amount of detail. I especially like the hidden areas that drill down into more detail on a number of important topics.
> 
> One area that I found especially interesting was the great detail that was presented regarding the various potential mic positions. While I have experimented with various patterns until I settled in on one that gives me consistent results, I have never been so specific in analyzing the differences among various mike patterns. Nice job!
> 
> There were a few areas that I would add a few comments. For example, on being able to store multiple Audyssey results for comparison, there is an alternative to the Pro Kit's ability to save and re-load measurement points. It is the network configuration save/load capability available on higher-end Denon AVR's, which saves the Audyssey filters as well as the AVR configuration data. And as for the advice to never place a measurement point where someone doesn't sit, this doesn't always work for users like myself. For the majority of the time, I am the only listener, so my measurement points are arranged in a pattern around the PLP, and include points where no one sits. The results for the PLP are excellent. And finally, you may have mentioned it and I could have missed it, but the key to repeatable results for Audyssey calibrations is careful attention to a repeatable process, including being careful to use the same measurement points once you have found one that produces good results.
> 
> Once again, congratulations on a nice job!


Jerry,

I really appreciate the feedback. Thanks for the thorough read-through and for pointing out changes that needed to be made, especially about advanced AVRs with config save capability. I had not run into that. I just finished making a few changes based on your comments.

Thanks again, and all the best.

Wayne


----------



## AudiocRaver

RapalloAV said:


> My first post here.
> 
> Thank you for the very informative Audyssey instructions. There are so many new points I have never seen before, especially on mic placement which I'm eager to try.
> 
> I just don't understand what some of the positions mean, can you clarify please, I'm using XT32?
> 
> *Base Setup Mic Pattern - MultEQ XT32, MultEQ XT, MultEQ. Use for step 2 of this Process: PLP center, 3 in forward, 3 in up, 3 in up & 3 in forward, 3 in L, 3 in R, 6 in L, 6 in R*
> What does 3 in up mean?
> 3 in forward?
> etc etc...


Murray,

First of all, welcome to Home Theater Shack. We hope you come back often and find our forums to be a valuable resource.

Thanks for the feedback and questions. Sorry about all the abbreviations, I probably got a bit carried away with them.

Specifically relative to the example you quoted:


PLP center means the center of head point at the Primary Listening Position. Then the other measurement points are relative to that point. The directions are from the perspective of a person seated at that Listening Position.
The 2nd measurement point is 3 inches forward (toward the front of the room) from the PLPC point.
The 3rd measurement point is 3 inches up above the PLPC point.
The 4th measurement point is 3 inches up above and 3 inches forward from the PLPC point.
The 5th measurement point is 3 inches left of the PLPC point.
The 6th measurement point is 3 inches right of the PLPC point.
The 7th measurement point is 6 inches left of the PLPC point.
The 8th measurement point is 6 inches right of the PLPC point.
Hope that helps. I will take this opportunity to clarify that example in the article and hopefully reduce future confusion.

Thanks again for your comments and happy AMEQing.

Wayne


----------



## RapalloAV

AudiocRaver said:


> Murray,
> 
> First of all, welcome to Home Theater Shack. We hope you come back often and find our forums to be a valuable resource.
> 
> Thanks for the feedback and questions. Sorry about all the abbreviations, I probably got a bit carried away with them.
> 
> Specifically relative to the example you quoted:
> 
> 
> PLP center means the center of head point at the Primary Listening Position. Then the other measurement points are relative to that point. The directions are from the perspective of a person seated at that Listening Position.
> The 2nd measurement point is 3 inches forward (toward the front of the room) from the PLPC point.
> The 3rd measurement point is 3 inches up above the PLPC point.
> The 4th measurement point is 3 inches up above and 3 inches forward from the PLPC point.
> The 5th measurement point is 3 inches left of the PLPC point.
> The 6th measurement point is 3 inches right of the PLPC point.
> The 7th measurement point is 6 inches left of the PLPC point.
> The 8th measurement point is 6 inches right of the PLPC point.
> Hope that helps. I will take this opportunity to clarify that example in the article and hopefully reduce future confusion.
> 
> Thanks again for your comments and happy AMEQing.
> 
> Wayne


Thanks for that clarification Wayne. I don't see any recommendation from you regarding mic placement when the back of the seats are higher than the ear height. Others say place the mic up to 2' away from the back of the seat, what are your thoughts?


----------



## cavchameleon

Wayne,

That is a GREAT job on summerizing the most important aspects of Audyssey. Thanks for the time and effort in putting it together. I've been using Audyssey products since 2006 and won't purchase another AVR that does not have such a feature. 

Again, Much Appreciated!!!:T


----------



## tonyvdb

RapalloAV said:


> Thanks for that clarification Wayne. I don't see any recommendation from you regarding mic placement when the back of the seats are higher than the ear height. Others say place the mic up to 2' away from the back of the seat, what are your thoughts?


Its been my understanding that you should move the mic forward if the backs are high like you say. 

Wayne, thats a great writeup and will be very useful for people just getting into home theater who need a detailed description.


----------



## AudiocRaver

RapalloAV said:


> Thanks for that clarification Wayne. I don't see any recommendation from you regarding mic placement when the back of the seats are higher than the ear height. Others say place the mic up to 2' away from the back of the seat, what are your thoughts?


That is something I tried several times, with varying results. I actually got more consistent results just using measurement points a few inches in front of the high seat back, right where the head would end up. Case #4 shows the result with the mic moved one foot above a high sofa back, it did not work out so well. To get completely away from the effects of reflections off of furniture, you have to get far enough away that the measurement point no longer represents what the listener will hear.

If there are three chairs of the same design, or a high-backed sofa, and each seat ends up being an analysis point, try placing the mic where the listener's head would end up, but at the first chair place it 3 inches forward from the seat back, at the second chair place it 6 inches forward, and at the third chair place it 9 inches forward, etc. Now you are getting results that really represent the sound at those seats, and the FR fluctuations that result from reflections off the seat back will be different for each measurement and will have minimal effect.

If one single high-backed chair is the only listening position, try the Near Field Monitoring Setup Mic Pattern or the 8-Point Basic Mic Setup Mic Pattern. I was always extremely happy with results from both of them even with high-backed chairs.

Best of luck.


----------



## AudiocRaver

cavchameleon said:


> Wayne, that is a GREAT job on summerizing the most important aspects of Audyssey. Thanks for the time and effort in putting it together. I've been using Audyssey products since 2006 and won't purchase another AVR that does not have such a feature.





tonyvdb said:


> Wayne, thats a great writeup and will be very useful for people just getting into home theater who need a detailed description.


Thank you both very kindly. There were times I was not sure it would ever get finished. I cannot tell you what it means to get your positive feedback. That makes it all worthwhile.

Wayne


----------



## AudiocRaver

Sonnie said:


> You did an awesome job Wayne... very detailed and thorough. It should be a valuable asset to many users.
> 
> A BIG Thanks! :T :T :T


Thank you for the kind words, Sonnie. Happy to be of service!

Wayne


----------



## RapalloAV

AudiocRaver said:


> That is something I tried several times, with varying results. I actually got more consistent results just using measurement points a few inches in front of the high seat back, right where the head would end up. Case #4 shows the result with the mic moved one foot above a high sofa back, it did not work out so well. To get completely away from the effects of reflections off of furniture, you have to get far enough away that the measurement point no longer represents what the listener will hear.
> 
> If there are three chairs of the same design, or a high-backed sofa, and each seat ends up being an analysis point, try placing the mic where the listener's head would end up, but at the first chair place it 3 inches forward from the seat back, at the second chair place it 6 inches forward, and at the third chair place it 9 inches forward, etc. Now you are getting results that really represent the sound at those seats, and the FR fluctuations that result from reflections off the seat back will be different for each measurement and will have minimal effect.
> 
> If one single high-backed chair is the only listening position, try the Near Field Monitoring Setup Mic Pattern or the 8-Point Basic Mic Setup Mic Pattern. I was always extremely happy with results from both of them even with high-backed chairs.
> 
> Best of luck.


Gee Wayne you really sound like you know what your talking about I'm very impressed! Lets hope I can get some better results than what Ive been struggling with over the last 1.5 years!

Can you take a look at my room and offer advise please. I have three rows of four seats over risers. The back row is always my problem as we all know with seats close to the back wall..... Ive since made bass traps all round the back row which has helped to an extent but Ive exhausted that area now. My middle row is the most important, then the back row and the front last. The ear height on the seat is at the top where the two buttons are, so the back of the seat is above the head.

Is there a mic pattern you would recommend for me here please that I can try?

I have done hundreds of trial runs, sometimes ok sometimes TERRIBLE! When they are terrible I get a shocking ringing (if that's the right word) in the back row on long low notes of music. Some mic results reduce this....

Im just trying to settle on a mic pattern that will produce acceptable results.

My Build:
http://www.rapalloav.co.nz/blog/rapallo-home-cinema-build


----------



## theJman

That is an _extraordinary_ piece of work Wayne! I can't begin to imagine how much time and effort it took to create an elaborate and all encompassing guide such as that. Truly incredible...


----------



## swingin

Couple if questions that are confusing me, audyssey always sets my speakers to large, which the all are. The X-overs are always set to 40Hz after running audyssey, are you saying to leave these settings alone, even after all the talk on setting speakers to small with X-over at minimum 80Hz? 

Other values that can be adjusted with minimal impact are the level settings for each speaker. LFE crossover settings should not be changed, nor should speaker size. Distance settings for speakers other than L, C, and R should not be changed. Subwoofer distance setting can be changed if it is found to fix a frequency response smoothness problem at the LFE crossover frequency.

Also, Note: Before running Audyssey MultEQ, be sure the subwoofer's controls are set with the crossover frequency at its highest value and the phase setting at zero degrees.

Are you saying I should set my 3 SVS subs X-overs to 125? With my speakers set to 40? Im confused, but if thats the way it should be done, then I'm sure going to give it a try..

Excellent write up :T Thank you.


----------



## primetimeguy

swingin said:


> Couple if questions that are confusing me, audyssey always sets my speakers to large, which the all are. The X-overs are always set to 40Hz after running audyssey, are you saying to leave these settings alone, even after all the talk on setting speakers to small with X-over at minimum 80Hz?
> 
> Other values that can be adjusted with minimal impact are the level settings for each speaker. LFE crossover settings should not be changed, nor should speaker size. Distance settings for speakers other than L, C, and R should not be changed. Subwoofer distance setting can be changed if it is found to fix a frequency response smoothness problem at the LFE crossover frequency.
> 
> Also, Note: Before running Audyssey MultEQ, be sure the subwoofer's controls are set with the crossover frequency at its highest value and the phase setting at zero degrees.
> 
> Are you saying I should set my 3 SVS subs X-overs to 125? With my speakers set to 40? Im confused, but if thats the way it should be done, then I'm sure going to give it a try..
> 
> Excellent write up :T Thank you.


Technically Audyssey does not set your crossovers, your receiver does. Audyssey simple reports the -3db point to the receiver and the manufacturer decides what to do from their. Personally I would recommend adjusting all speakers to small and 80hz crossover for all speakers.

And yes, set your SVS crossovers as high as they will go as your are trying to take them out of the equation.


----------



## swingin

primetimeguy said:


> Technically Audyssey does not set your crossovers, your receiver does. Audyssey simple reports the -3db point to the receiver and the manufacturer decides what to do from their. Personally I would recommend adjusting all speakers to small and 80hz crossover for all speakers.
> 
> And yes, set your SVS crossovers as high as they will go as your are trying to take them out of the equation.


OK, I understand the speaker part. That's the way I have them set now, even though they are some pretty big speakers with duel 15's.

Question on the LFE in the AVR, would I keep that on 80Hz, or should I raise that to, the max I have is 120Hz?

Thank you...


----------



## primetimeguy

Set LFE to 120hz so you don't lose any signal in the .1 channel


----------



## swingin

primetimeguy said:


> Set LFE to 120hz so you don't lose any signal in the .1 channel


Thank you very much, I will give that a try the same time I do what Wayne has suggested for audyssey mic placement. Luckily for me, I'm the only one who cares :T:hsd::hsd:


----------



## sdurani

swingin said:


> Question on the LFE in the AVR, would I keep that on 80Hz, or should I raise that to, the max I have is 120Hz?


I'll be the heretic and give an alternate view. 

I haven't found much content, and certainly nothing critical, between 80Hz and 120Hz in the LFE channel. Maybe some re-recording engineers are rolling off above 80Hz because it fits with the THX spec, maybe because commercial theatre speakers go down to 40-50Hz; who knows. 

With that in mind, I set the low pass filter of the LFE channel where I cross over to my main speakers (80Hz). The main reason for this is because I want a single blend point from subs to speakers. So if I get the blend just right at 80Hz, then want all the content from my subwoofers rolling off at that point, not some of it rolling off at 80Hz and some of it rolling off at 120Hz. Besides, at that high a frequency, most subwoofers I've heard start to become localizable.


----------



## RapalloAV

sdurani said:


> I'll be the heretic and give an alternate view.
> 
> I haven't found much content, and certainly nothing critical, between 80Hz and 120Hz in the LFE channel. Maybe some re-recording engineers are rolling off above 80Hz because it fits with the THX spec, maybe because commercial theatre speakers go down to 40-50Hz; who knows.
> 
> With that in mind, I set the low pass filter of the LFE channel where I cross over to my main speakers (80Hz). The main reason for this is because I want a single blend point from subs to speakers. So if I get the blend just right at 80Hz, then want all the content from my subwoofers rolling off at that point, not some of it rolling off at 80Hz and some of it rolling off at 120Hz. Besides, at that high a frequency, most subwoofers I've heard start to become localizable.


Ive tried both but I find if I set it at 120Hz the bass is BIGGER & DEEPER why is this?
When I go back to 80Hz the punch and life goes out of the subs....


----------



## sdurani

RapalloAV said:


> Ive tried both but I find if I set it at 120Hz the bass is BIGGER & DEEPER why is this?


It's not "deeper" in the way most people use that term (lower in frequency), but it is bigger/louder simply because you're reproducing more bass (content from 80Hz to 120Hz).


RapalloAV said:


> When I go back to 80Hz the punch and life goes out of the subs....


That's mid-bass punch. I get enough of that from my speakers so I don't need it from my subs as well. YMMV.


----------



## AudiocRaver

swingin said:


> Are you saying I should set my 3 SVS subs X-overs to 125? With my speakers set to 40? Im confused, but if thats the way it should be done, then I'm sure going to give it a try..


This is a confusing area, all the bass management and speaker setup variables. And I suspect that there may be differences in how AVR manufacturers handle it.

Here is what I found with the Onkyo TX-NR1009 receiver I worked with. And I just rechecked it to be sure. Any manually-entered speaker settings will always be over-ridden by the MultEQ Setup Sequence. I could set crossover points and sizes and distances, and MultEQ would ignore them and come up with its own settings every time, no way to just make it use your own settings. So MultEQ''s calculations and frequency response (FR) corrections are all done with its own crossover settings in mind.

You always have the option of changing those settings later to whatever you want. Just remember that the interaction of the speakers changes somewhat and MultEQ's correction will be affected. How much is anyone's guess. It hurts nothing to try it, you can switch them right back to AMEQ's settings without having to re-run the whole setup.

This is a minor (???} hole in the way AVRs and AMEQ work together. It would be good to have the option to have AMEQ use your manual settings, and some AVRs may allow it, but this is a nice, recent, upper-end model by Ohkyo and so I am guessing that most AVRs work the way this one does.

There may be enough to be gained in a specific situation to warrant changing those settings back to the way you want them, and in many cases - especially if the affected frequency range is pretty smooth for all your speakers - you may get exactly what you want, having the subs do the heavy lifting below 80 Hz, etc. There are enough variables that it will be hard to predict - it is a tricky range to get everything working together right.

So try it and see. If it sounds the same, then you have probably not upset AMEQ's FR curve and all should be fine - your improvement will be in terms of cleaner sound because your monster subs are letting your mains and surrounds take it easier in the LF range. If it sounds different - remember that if you can hear a difference easily it is probably a BIG difference - then the change has had a significant impact on the AMEQ tuning. That's the best you can know without breaking out measurement equipment to verify.



swingin said:


> Are you saying I should set my 3 SVS subs X-overs to 125? With my speakers set to 40? Im confused, but if thats the way it should be done, then I'm sure going to give it a try..


So back to your questions (I got rambly): setting the sub X-overs to 125 simply allows AMEQ to pick the best X-over frequency itself. It is a little puzzling that MultEQ seems designed to do the opposite of what we are usually recommended to do when setting up our speakers. The common advice to set the sub X-over high - usually 80 Hz - and take some burden off of the mains seems like a good strategy to me and much of the AV community. But AMEQ seems consistently to do the opposite - use the lowest X-over point the mains allow and set the sub(s) to work less in their higher range. And if smaller surrounds don't go that low, a gap is left in their lower range - although it is arguable how much LF material goes to surrounds anyway. As I said above, this is what I have seen and heard from others, but there may be variations in the way this is handled in different AVR designs.

I can think of no pro or con in setting the sub X-over lower. As *primetimeguy* suggests, leaving it set high gets it out of the way, and I agree it is the best default approach. Some users do lower it intentionally to steepen the LP filtering at the X-over, but usually have measurement equipment to veryify the goodness of the result.



primetimeguy said:


> Technically Audyssey does not set your crossovers, your receiver does. Audyssey simple reports the -3db point to the receiver and the manufacturer decides what to do from their. Personally I would recommend adjusting all speakers to small and 80hz crossover for all speakers.


Again, there is good reason to change those settings if it seems not to upset the EQ result. If it sounds different enough FR-wise that you can hear it, then your LF response is being messed with in a significant way by that change. Just beware.



> Question on the LFE in the AVR, would I keep that on 80Hz, or should I raise that to, the max I have is 120Hz?


Raising the LFE value in the AVR to 120 - assuming mains LF point left at 40, for instance - has both the mains and sub working the range from 40 to 120, almost sure to be a major disruption of FR through that range. One of the main purposes of a crossover point is to keep driver interaction to a minimum. I would expect the best results from A) leaving the settings the way AMEQ set them; or B) _possibly,_ if FR seems not to be disrupted, changing the X-over settings for sub and all speakers to 60 or 80 Hz, as seems best for your speakers, as long as the FR in that range seems not to be disrupted.

Some surrounds are smaller with LF cutoffs at 120, 150, even 180 Hz. Setting the LFE X-over at 80 leaves a gap with them. In practical listening terms, that response gap for the surrounds is probably less disrupting to the sound with most material than the negative interaction with the larger front mains would be if the LFE X-over is moved higher. IMO.



sdurani said:


> : I haven't found much content, and certainly nothing critical, between 80Hz and 120Hz in the LFE channel. Maybe some re-recording engineers are rolling off above 80Hz because it fits with the THX spec, maybe because commercial theatre speakers go down to 40-50Hz; who knows.
> 
> With that in mind, I set the low pass filter of the LFE channel where I cross over to my main speakers (80Hz). The main reason for this is because I want a single blend point from subs to speakers. So if I get the blend just right at 80Hz, then want all the content from my subwoofers rolling off at that point, not some of it rolling off at 80Hz and some of it rolling off at 120Hz. Besides, at that high a frequency, most subwoofers I've heard start to become localizable.


*Sanjay* put it so much better than I could. Nice explanation, agree with every word.



> Ive tried both but I find if I set it at 120Hz the bass is BIGGER & DEEPER why is this?
> When I go back to 80Hz the punch and life goes out of the subs....


I suspect you are getting some serious interaction between mains and subs in that range where they are both active, and if you were to look at it with measurement equipment, it is almost guaranteed not to be smooth or well controlled.

If you want more bass, a much better way to get it is leave MultEQ's settings so they are giving you _smooth_ low-frequency response, then boost it with your AVR's tone controls. A gold old LF shelf "Bass" control should give a fairly well controlled result.


----------



## AudiocRaver

RapalloAV said:


> Can you take a look at my room and offer advise please. I have three rows of four seats over risers. The back row is always my problem as we all know with seats close to the back wall..... Ive since made bass traps all round the back row which has helped to an extent but Ive exhausted that area now. My middle row is the most important, then the back row and the front last. The ear height on the seat is at the top where the two buttons are, so the back of the seat is above the head.
> 
> Is there a mic pattern you would recommend for me here please that I can try?
> 
> I have done hundreds of trial runs, sometimes ok sometimes TERRIBLE! When they are terrible I get a shocking ringing (if that's the right word) in the back row on long low notes of music. Some mic results reduce this....
> 
> Im just trying to settle on a mic pattern that will produce acceptable results.


That is one beautiful theater. Unfortunately, it has walls, and a ceiling! Whatchagonnado?:doh:

Sounds like you have done what you can treatment-wise. Interesting that you prioritize the middle row the highest. Seems like that should help some. The question for mic patterns, the way I see it, is always: from the PLP, how much variation is there to the other seats? I would really like to hear what results you get just by trying out - just to see how it sounds - the 8-Point Basic Setup Mic pattern at the PLP, your main seat - go through the first 4 steps of the Room EQ Process, and see how good the PLP can sound at its very best. And how the other seats sound relative to it. I wonder if you might end up finding that - even with all the trapping you have done on the back wall - the variation from middle to front row might be less significant than the variation from middle to back row. That just seems to be the way it goes close to walls, even with treatments like you have applied.

Assuming for the moment that is what you find, then you have to make one of the following 3 choices:

Prioritize middle then front row, consider the back row "outliers" and not include them in your final analysis pattern: Probably the path that would give you the best sounding 8 seats. Then try a final pattern something like:



Code:


---------------------------------
|        | |        | |        | |        |
|        | |        | |        | |        |  BACK
---------------------------------
                                                       all points at actual head position, except: 1, 2, & 3 three inches
-----------PLP-------------------         from the seat back, 4 & 5 four and 1/2 inches from seat back,
|    4   | |3 1 2 | |   5   | |        |         and 6, 7, & 8 six inches from seat back
|        | |        | |        | |        |  MIDDLE
---------------------------------

---------------------------------
|    6   | |  7    | |   8   | |        |
|        | |        | |        | |        |  FRONT
---------------------------------


Prioritize middle then back row, consider the front row "outliers" and not include them in your final analysis pattern: Just guessing this will give you 8 main seats that don't sound as good as option 1. The best pattern for this choice might look something like this:


Code:


---------------------------------
|    6   | |  7    | |   8   | |        |
|        | |        | |        | |        |  BACK
---------------------------------
                                                       all points at actual head position, except: 1, 2, & 3 three inches
-----------PLP-------------------         from the seat back, 4 & 5 four and 1/2 inches from seat back,
|    4   | |3 1 2 | |   5   | |        |         and 6, 7, & 8 six inches from seat back
|        | |        | |        | |        |  MIDDLE
---------------------------------

---------------------------------
|        | |        | |        | |        |
|        | |        | |        | |        |  FRONT
---------------------------------


Prioritize all rows equally: Prioritize all the same. Sadly, if you have much variation to work with, this will probably give you the most unsatisfying overall sound, with NONE of the seats sounding all that good. Pattern:


Code:


---------------------------------
|        | |  5    | |   6    | |        |
|        | |        | |        | |        |  BACK
---------------------------------
                                                       all points at actual head position, except: 1, 2, & 3 three inches
-----------PLP-------------------         from the seat back, 4 & 5 four and 1/2 inches from seat back,
|        | |3 1 2 | |   4    | |        |         and 6, 7, & 8 six inches from seat back
|        | |        | |        | |        |  MIDDLE
---------------------------------

---------------------------------
|        | |  7    | |   8    | |        |
|        | |        | |        | |        |  FRONT
---------------------------------




By grouping more points on the PLP row you give it somewhat higher priority and keep more MultEQ power focused there, that will help some where there is more variation, I would definitely recommend you do that no matter what.

Try steps 1 thru 4 first and let us know what you think of that "ideal" sound. Almost forgot: Do the 8-Point Basic pattern, step two, right where your head would be, even though that seat back is right there close to the setup mic. MultEQ will then be hearing what YOU would be hearing. I would really like to hear your reaction.


----------



## primetimeguy

AudiocRaver said:


> Raising the LFE value in the AVR to 120 - assuming mains LF point left at 40, for instance - has both the mains and sub working the range from 40 to 120, almost sure to be a major disruption of FR through that range. One of the main purposes of a crossover point is to keep driver interaction to a minimum. I would expect the best results from A) leaving the settings the way AMEQ set them; or B) _possibly,_ if FR seems not to be disrupted, changing the X-over settings for sub and all speakers to 60 or 80 Hz, as seems best for your speakers, as long as the FR in that range seems not to be disrupted.


The LFE setting is a LPF for only the LFE channel, not a crossover so it has no impact what is going to the front channels. You can either set it to 120hz and be sure you are hearing everything in the LFE channel, or as Sanjay mentioned, set it to 80hz to roll it off a bit. In that situation you may be slightly loosing some content but maybe it sounds better or integrates better for you.


----------



## swingin

Thank's for all the input everybody. I think I'm going to do some experimenting with the X-overs just to see what my speakers, my ears, and my room likes. When doing REW I have a big dip in the 61 and 71Hz range so I think I will try the X-overs at 60 to start with. My surrounds, AT-15's go down to the upper 20's, plus everything is on amps so I have plenty of power to push whatever sound does come out of them. 

Apparently when running audyssey, I've been doing it all wrong, putting the mic in front of the couch, behind the couch and in every seat. Next time, all 8 positions will be on my cushion, being I'm the only one who cares. :bigsmile: 

Thank's again everybody :T


----------



## RapalloAV

AudiocRaver said:


> I suspect you are getting some serious interaction between mains and subs in that range where they are both active, and if you were to look at it with measurement equipment, it is almost guaranteed not to be smooth or well controlled.
> 
> If you want more bass, a much better way to get it is leave MultEQ's settings so they are giving you _smooth_ low-frequency response, then boost it with your AVR's tone controls. A gold old LF shelf "Bass" control should give a fairly well controlled result.


Wayne, you are pretty much saying leave the crossovers where XT32 finds them and the LFE at 80Hz not change it to 120Hz as most say, correct?

I have all THX speakers and I have always moved my crossovers up to 80Hz as THX mentions to do, and set LFE to 120Hz, but I have always felt something was out of whack in the sound! After XT32 my speakers range from 40Hz, 60Hz and 70Hz, Im running wides and highs with surround L&R.

Im going to do a test run today with your recommendation of "best" group seats middle and front row mic positions, and leave everything as XT32 finds it, then I will report back.

BTW.
How did you arrive at these mic positions that differ so much to what Audyssey recommends and the guys on AVSforums, especially the near-field ones?
I find it very intriguing as I too found that my sound improved when I placed the mic exactly where the head was in my seats, close to the back at 3". When I did this the ringing in my bass disappeared, but the guys on AVsforums told me I was wrong and in doing so I was making all my other seats bad. I never thought they were bad with this near-field placement, I knew it sounded better, but for fear of breaking the rules I went back to the "so called correct" mic placement and also went back also to the ringing resonating bass......:boxer:

Oh dear what a dilemma its all been for a very long time......:whistling:
Over the last few nights Ive been following your recommendations and my results have been improving again, Im breaking all the so called "correct mic positions" with the mic "where the ear actually is" (not 2 feet away from the back of the seat) and finally I have improved sound again. The funny thing is, I always thought why are we not placing the mic exactly where the ears sit in the seat, if that's where our ears are surly XT32 will try to correct the place where we are actually sitting, not correcting a place we are not.

Very interesting, at least for me I now know, breaking the rules is improving my sound....

Thanks Wayne for confirming someone else too has a similar theory.:T


----------



## sdurani

primetimeguy said:


> You can either set it to 120hz and be sure you are hearing everything in the LFE channel, or as Sanjay mentioned, set it to 80hz to roll it off a bit. In that situation you may be slightly loosing some content but maybe it sounds better or integrates better for you.


Yup, and let me underscore that last part for folks that read my earlier post: setting the LPF below 120Hz discards some content from the LFE channel in order to get a single blend point between your subwoofer(s) and speakers. It's a compromise and folks have to be comfortable giving one up for the other (not everyone is). Just wanted to make sure people understood what happened when the LPF is set to 100Hz or 80Hz to match the crossover.


----------



## sdurani

swingin said:


> I have a big dip in the 61 and 71Hz range so I think I will try the X-overs at 60 to start with.


Can you try placing your subwoofer at the location where you are measuring the dip to see if it cancels out?


----------



## AudiocRaver

RapalloAV said:


> Wayne, you are pretty much saying leave the crossovers where XT32 finds them and the LFE at 80Hz not change it to 120Hz as most say, correct?


I am just saying that approach leaves XT32's corrected EQ intact. No harm in seeing how it sounds with different speaker settings, as *primetimeguy* suggests, only beware that the EQ result _could_ change somewhat.



> I have all THX speakers and I have always moved my crossovers up to 80Hz as THX mentions to do, and set LFE to 120Hz, but I have always felt something was out of whack in the sound! After XT32 my speakers range from 40Hz, 60Hz and 70Hz, Im running wides and highs with surround L&R.


MultEQ insists on doing speaker setting its way. I hope Audyssey and AVR manufacturers will consider in the future giving the intelligent user the option of having the EQ done with their own desired speaker settings. We shall see.



> BTW.
> How did you arrive at these mic positions that differ so much to what Audyssey recommends and the guys on AVSforums, especially the near-field ones?


That actually leads to some other thoughts about MultEQ. It is clear that the overall design philosophy for the stock (non-Pro) versions of MultEQ is:

make operation as simple as possible
no unnecessary options that could be confusing
get the best sound possible without making the user have to think about it very much
cater to the least common denominator user
make a lot of customers happy; which also means accepting the fact that it will NOT make ALL customers happy 

And that is a pretty wise approach overall. They do have many happy customers. But if you look around the forums very much, you will also find quite a few frustrated customers who have followed the guidelines and do not like the results.

That is where Audyssey would like to see the Pro kit kick in. More capability, more options, more complexity, even the option of calling an experienced Installer to come over and help do the work. Call the stock approach LEVEL 1 and the Pro Kit LEVEL 2. Again, a smart product philosophy overall.

But there is a gap, let's call it the LEVEL 1.5 gap, for those who want more guidance without getting into detailed measurements and without calling an Installer. I believe there are a LOT of users who fall into that gap.

I got frustrated early on when one setup run would get fantastic results and the next one would get drastically different results - and both patterns were consistent with the "guidelines." The borderline-OCD tweaker in me had to try to understand why (it was actually fun - _for awhile_).

It became clear after working with MultEQ for awhile that *with a little bit more work and thought,* it is possible to get *better results,* or to get *good results more consistently.* So here is a set of LEVEL 1.5 guidelines for those stuck in that gap. That is the need these recommendations are intended to fill.

If the standard approach (LEVEL 1) satisfies you, you are done!:yay: If it just does not seem to be working, don't get mad:gah:, don't panic:crying:, here are a few more things to try (LEVEL 1.5) before giving up completely and calling the Installer (LEVEL 2):surrender:.

I will credit Sonnie for helping make this come about. I was pushing at one point to pull REW and simple measurements into the process, but he pushed back, wanted it to be for the user who needed just a little more know-how for better results. So that became the goal, LEVEL 1.5, MultEQ success techniques for the frustrated DIY hobby AV user who would probably never call the Pro Installer anyway.

On the mic patterns, I actually started out with the near-field work, since 2-channel is my own personal area of emphasis. It was a little mind-blowing, one mic pattern would give imaging that would melt your heart (vocalist so laser-sharp you think she is standing in front of you), and a _seemingly_ slightly different patten would give imaging devoid of any sense of clarity (vocalist now with mouth a blurry eight feet wide - yikes!). So I HAD to figure out the near-field techniques, then be able to carry at least the _option_ of good image clarity into the home theater configurations. From there, the measurements showd which patterns types worked well consistently.



> I find it very intriguing as I too found that my sound improved when I placed the mic exactly where the head was in my seats, close to the back at 3". When I did this the ringing in my bass disappeared, but the guys on AVsforums told me I was wrong and in doing so I was making all my other seats bad. I never thought they were bad with this near-field placement, I knew it sounded better, but for fear of breaking the rules I went back to the "so called correct" mic placement and also went back also to the ringing resonating bass......:boxer:
> 
> Oh dear what a dilemma its all been for a very long time......:whistling:
> Over the last few nights Ive been following your recommendations and my results have been improving again, Im breaking all the so called "correct mic positions" with the mic "where the ear actually is" (not 2 feet away from the back of the seat) and finally I have improved sound again. The funny thing is, I always thought why are we not placing the mic exactly where the ears sit in the seat, if that's where our ears are surly XT32 will try to correct the place where we are actually sitting, not correcting a place we are not.
> 
> Very interesting, at least for me I now know, breaking the rules is improving my sound....
> 
> Thanks Wayne for confirming someone else too has a similar theory.:T


There are rules and there are rules.:heehee: Fun thing about AV is that about the only rules that are really important are the ones that keep you from getting electrocuted or from burning down your house or upsetting the significant other or the neighbors. Beyond that, it is all _advice._

One RULE I would suggest is:

It is your system, run it the way you like it. Someone giving you well-intended advice in a forum (myself included!) - _that turns out not to work for you in your situation_ - will probably have forgotten all about you while you suffer with the results for who knows how long. It is just advice. 

BTW, I am truly pleased you are getting better results. Seeing the MultEQ writeup in print is fun, but hearing that it helps someone get to a better-sounding system - that makes my day!


----------



## RapalloAV

Wayne, thanks for the reply it was very interesting to read.

My results are the best I have ever heard after trying hundreds of different mic positions over the last 1.5 years! At least I now don't feel guilty for using mic positions that differ from the "rules"!!!!

Ive tried all the ones you suggested and have come up with a set of my own that I feel are better for my cinema.

Ive so far just settled on the mid and back rows of seating as this pattern sounds best. I have been exactly precise with every position and they have all been measured to the MM. After measuring someone's ears sitting in my seats I realised that they are actually 6" out from the back of the seat.

The positions I settled on are 5 mic positions for the middle row with the mic all 6" out from the centre of the seat. Three mic positions are done in the back row at 3" out from the back of the seat. When I make the distance further than 3" the bass in the back row becomes too much!

I took some measurements with REW take a look and tell me what you think.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Your front and center rows look quite well controlled. The back row is a little rougher, but not bad for a back row, For a 3-row home theater, back row against the wall, it looks pretty good!

The main thing is that you got a result that you are happy with. Fantastic!


----------



## tcarcio

First, Thank you Wayne for an awsome guide and for answering so many questions. I have one of my own. I have the 809 with XT but my room isn't the most optimum set up. I have to be close to the rear wall due to space limitations so I wondered what mic positions you would recommend for such a setup, Thanks, and here is a pic of mr seating.


----------



## Sevenfeet

This is a great guide and I've enjoyed reading it. I just put a Denon X2000 receiver in my rack which is temporarily replacing my venerable 3805. I want to get something more powerful like the X4000 or the 4520 but I'm waiting until next year when HDMI 2.0 bows...and then the X2000 will live powering the speakers in our sunroom/playroom as originally intended. More on this in another thread.

But the 3805 had rudimentary frequency compensation and generally wasn't very good at figuring out my room, which has a 12 foot barn style ceiling, and the walls aren't exactly rectangle due to some of the choices of the original builder (like building the nearby laundry room). As a result, the older Denon never really seemed to deal with the room right when asked to use its mic and software, resulting in me breaking out the Radio Shack SPL meter and doing it myself.

One question....Audyssey correctly diagnosed that my system has mostly full range towers and a mostly full range center channel. Is there any way to manually check what adjustments that are being made? Did I miss something here?


----------



## AustinJerry

.


----------



## robsong

I did 101 set up in my room and this is what I got. Fronts full, center small, surr rears small, surr rears back small and heights small. Distance was FL 9.7, FR 9.5, C 8.5, SW 10.3, SL 8.2, SR 7.5, SBL 7.7, SBR 7.6 FHL 12.6 and FHR 12.5. My speakers are front 3 KEF Q900, Q600, NHT for rears, KEF 3005 for heights and SW is HSU VTF15H. My avr is Denon 4311ci.


----------



## frailjar

Hello! This is my first post here! 

I will be doing my first calibration tomorrow! 

I have a question about the subwoofer setting.

In the setup guide topic #5 Audyssey MultEQ Usage Guidlines
Step 16, states to set the sub at the highest (15OHz) setting.
-Is that where I keep it, even after calibration?

Thanks


----------



## AustinJerry

.


----------



## frailjar

Hello again!

There are two ways I could read the following step in the setup:

SW Level: nn dB - The subwoofer will now play a pink noise signal. Adjust the subwoofer volume control until the readout on the AVR says 75 dB, then press Enter. Its the "subwoofer volume control" that is throwing me off.


1. I play the pink noise and adjust the volume ON the sub itself, to read 75db on the TV screen. The pink noise is being picked up by the connected mic? So, the mic is acting as a decible meter? If so, why would I not be directed to place my mic at my MLP prior to this step?

2. I play the pink noise and leave the volume on the sub at 12 o'clock. I adjust the volume of the sub with the main volume of my reciever ONLY to the 75db.

I know I am over thinking this! I just don't have much time to do it (the kids are out of the house). I want to get it right the first time!! 

Thanks for your time!


----------



## AustinJerry

.


----------



## frailjar

Thanks for the reply! 

For the calibration, do I adjust the master volume for the main speakers to 75db (I have a 2.1 setup at the moment), or does calibration software produce the test signals at the required volume? I didn't see that specified anywhere.

Thank you!


----------



## robsong

The calibration software will produce the test signals at the required volume.


----------



## Sonnie

frailjar said:


> Hello again!
> 
> There are two ways I could read the following step in the setup:
> 
> SW Level: nn dB - The subwoofer will now play a pink noise signal. Adjust the subwoofer volume control until the readout on the AVR says 75 dB, then press Enter. Its the "subwoofer volume control" that is throwing me off.
> 
> 
> 1. I play the pink noise and adjust the volume ON the sub itself, to read 75db on the TV screen. The pink noise is being picked up by the connected mic? So, the mic is acting as a decible meter? If so, why would I not be directed to place my mic at my MLP prior to this step?
> 
> 2. I play the pink noise and leave the volume on the sub at 12 o'clock. I adjust the volume of the sub with the main volume of my reciever ONLY to the 75db.
> 
> I know I am over thinking this! I just don't have much time to do it (the kids are out of the house). I want to get it right the first time!!
> 
> Thanks for your time!


If you find you are having to turn the gain down on your sub amp (volume on sub) pretty low to get to 75db, you may have a large peak in your sub response. If you have the means (DSP - parametric EQ on the sub or some other type EQ such as the MiniDSP or BFD) you may want to tame that large peak and then reset the sub levels prior to running Audyssey.


----------



## frailjar

I ran the calibration today! I actually have a soundstage now! I cranked the music up for a while, an it sounded pretty good! Thanks for the help!


----------



## Sonnie

Congratulations!

And btw... welcome to the Shack!


----------



## AudiocRaver

tcarcio said:


> First, Thank you Wayne for an awsome guide and for answering so many questions. I have one of my own. I have the 809 with XT but my room isn't the most optimum set up. I have to be close to the rear wall due to space limitations so I wondered what mic positions you would recommend for such a setup, Thanks, and here is a pic of mr seating.


Pardon my slow response, I got kinda tied up with household stuff the last couple of days.:R

Chairs up against the wall is a common situation, we work with what we have.

I would suggest trying the #103 pattern, with 2 slight variations:

Select one of the two center seats as your Primary Listening Position and locate mic positions 1-4 there, at the center of the seat, and use the spacing dimensions given, starting at 3 inches from the back of the seat at the PLPC (or whatever you measure that distance to be for your particular chair style; I usually came up with 3 inches, but others often measure an inch or two more). In my experience, the chairs being located close to the wall makes it more important than ever that the actual head position be used for setting mic locations, because frequency response varies all over the place that close to the wall. Also have mic location 5 on the PLP seat, 3 inches forward and close to the "center of the row" edge of that chair back.
Place each of the other 3 mic locations at each of the other 3 seats, at the head position, but vary the distance from the back of the seat slightly. One at 3 inches, one at 4.5 inches, one at 6 inches. This will help compensate for individual head positions.
I will be updating the Guide shortly with these suggestions.

Hope that helps.:sn:


----------



## AudiocRaver

Sevenfeet said:


> One question....Audyssey correctly diagnosed that my system has mostly full range towers and a mostly full range center channel. Is there any way to manually check what adjustments that are being made? Did I miss something here?


Audyssey MultEQ consistently sets mains and center to use their full range, and sets the LFE crossover accordingly. This is the opposite of the normal recommendation you hear for home theater speakers, which is to set the mains/center to small/80 Hz and the LFE crossover to 80 Hz and let the sub(s) do the heavy lifting for the system. If you change the speaker size and LFE crossover settings after running MultEQ, beware that you are potentially (probably) changing the EQ in that frequency range. After the adjustment, listen carefully for changes in the LF sound. If it seems different, your LF EQ has changed and you would probably be better off changing it back. If it sounds the same, you are probably OK with those adjusted settings.

The only way to manually observe the adjustments that have been made is with a calibrated mic or SPL meter and analysis software like Room EQ Wizard. There is no way to "peek" at MultEQ's settings, other than size/distance/crossover, without the Pro Installer Kit.


----------



## AudiocRaver

frailjar said:


> Hello! This is my first post here!
> 
> I will be doing my first calibration tomorrow!
> 
> I have a question about the subwoofer setting.
> 
> In the setup guide topic #5 Audyssey MultEQ Usage Guidlines
> Step 16, states to set the sub at the highest (15OHz) setting.
> -Is that where I keep it, even after calibration?
> 
> Thanks


A late welcome! Glad you joined us. And again, beg pardon for my being slow to respond.

As already suggested, it is best to do exactly that, and let MultEQ and your AVR take care of the LFE crossover internally.



> 1. I play the pink noise and adjust the volume ON the sub itself, to read 75db on the TV screen. The pink noise is being picked up by the connected mic? So, the mic is acting as a decible meter? If so, why would I not be directed to place my mic at my MLP prior to this step?


Correct. You caught an error, and I just corrected it. Thank you.



> For the calibration, do I adjust the master volume for the main speakers to 75db (I have a 2.1 setup at the moment), or does calibration software produce the test signals at the required volume? I didn't see that specified anywhere.


As mentioned, MultEQ will set its own volume levels regardless of your AVR volume setting. I have added that fact to the Guide for clarification.



> I ran the calibration today! I actually have a soundstage now! I cranked the music up for a while, an it sounded pretty good! Thanks for the help!


Soundstage! Imaging! They are indeed wondrous to behold and entirely feasible with home theater systems. Glad you got good results! Congrats!:T


----------



## AustinJerry

.


----------



## theJman

frailjar said:


> In the setup guide topic #5 Audyssey MultEQ Usage Guidlines
> Step 16, states to set the sub at the highest (15OHz) setting.
> -Is that where I keep it, even after calibration?


To an extent, how you set the LPF on your sub is connection and personal preference specific as well.

If you're using just the LFE In connector, or whatever it's labeled on your particular subwoofer, then the crossover setting on the sub is irrelevant because it's bypassed. However, if you're using the Left and Right In connectors (generally via a Y adapter) then the crossover is enabled and you have a choice to make with regards to the subwoofers own setting. When left in it's maximum position you're allowing the AV receiver to handle all of the bass management, which is what works for most people. Some may want to experiment with it though...

When you set your AV receivers bass management to have a crossover point - 80Hz for example - it will start to roll off what it sends to the speakers around that frequency. It isn't a brick-wall cutoff; most often the slope is 2nd order, around 12dB per octave, which is essential a gradual reduction in output that _starts_ at the crossover setting. Most subwoofer LPF's are quite similar in response, often 2nd order as well. By using both you can take advantage of a phenomenon commonly known as "doubling up".

I'm sure you've heard people complain of a 'chestiness' in male voices, or a 'thickness' in the lower portion of the midrange, and sometimes that can be traced to a subwoofer that's less than precise or an integration issue between the speakers and subwoofer(s). I have found that this can be mitigated in certain cases by setting a LPF on the subwoofer to match the frequency used in the AVR. What this does is increase the gradual 2nd order slope into a much more pronounced and steep 4th order (the doubling up), which is then 24dB per octave. By forcing the subwoofer to cut it's output far quicker you can "clean up" some of the crossover muddiness that can lead to integration problems between your speakers and subwoofer(s).

There's no free lunch though, because a faster rolloff could lead to a phase issue at the crossover point, but thus far I haven't run into that too often, and I tend to use a subwoofers LPF quite frequently myself. If your system sounds fine the way it is now then perhaps the best thing is to leave it as is. But if you are having a potential integration issue - or just feel like experimenting - then try setting the LPF on your sub to match what the AVR is using (after enabling it by using the Left and Right In, of course). You may find it makes a difference for you.


----------



## tcarcio

AudiocRaver said:


> Pardon my slow response, I got kinda tied up with household stuff the last couple of days.:R
> 
> Chairs up against the wall is a common situation, we work with what we have.
> 
> I would suggest trying the #103 pattern, with 2 slight variations:
> 
> Select one of the two center seats as your Primary Listening Position and locate mic positions 1-4 there, at the center of the seat, and use the spacing dimensions given, starting at 3 inches from the back of the seat at the PLPC (or whatever you measure that distance to be for your particular chair style; I usually came up with 3 inches, but others often measure an inch or two more). In my experience, the chairs being located close to the wall makes it more important than ever that the actual head position be used for setting mic locations, because frequency response varies all over the place that close to the wall. Also have mic location 5 on the PLP seat, 3 inches forward and close to the "center of the row" edge of that chair back.
> Place each of the other 3 mic locations at each of the other 3 seats, at the head position, but vary the distance from the back of the seat slightly. One at 3 inches, one at 4.5 inches, one at 6 inches. This will help compensate for individual head positions.
> I will be updating the Guide shortly with these suggestions.
> 
> Hope that helps.:sn:


Thank you Wayne, I will try and give that a shot this weekend but it is the wifes birthday on saturday so if I want to live I might have to stay out of the HT......:heehee:


----------



## AudiocRaver

tcarcio said:


> Thank you Wayne, I will try and give that a shot this weekend but it is the wifes birthday on saturday so if I want to live I might have to stay out of the HT......:heehee:


Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life comes first, sounds like the highest priority.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Aha, I see my error. Setting speaker size to Small and raising speaker high-pass crossover values (usually to 80 Hz) are indeed reasonable adjustments to make after running MultEQ. I will be updating the Guide accordingly.

There are considerations.

As I said before, _see how it sounds._ The filter density for the subwoofer channel is as good as or better than that of the satellite channels, depending on MultEQ version, so it is reasonable to expect optimum EQing, and therefore the best LF frequency response, by letting the sub channel handle all material up to 80 Hz. _However,_ even with XT32 it has been observed that LFs in a room with strong room modes are often not dealt with effectively by MultEQ. It is entirely possible that the frequencies in question are handled better by the mains than by the sub, for instance, depending on many conditions. Bottom line: we HOPE the bass will sound best with the sub, but that is far from a guarantee. So _see how it sounds,_ and adjust, or not, accordingly. Having a measurement mic lets you know for sure, but we assume in the Guide and our discussions that you have only your ears to decide with.



AustinJerry said:


> normally mains are positioned for best imaging,


Normally mains are positioned for best cinema soundstage. The equilateral triangle with speakers pointed at PLP is optimum for soundstage, rarely for imaging. The EQ process can help or hurt.



> and the sub(s) are positioned for best bass response.


This takes a measurement mic or a strictly-rectangular room and the REW sub placement tool or tons of experience - which probably means the user has a measurement mic. Following guidelines, trial and error, and measuring by ear give results that are a far cry from optimum.




> The best overall bass, for both music and movies, is likely when the sub(s) are allowed to handle the bass. The actual crossover value between the subs and the mains (40, 60, 80Hz or higher), has to do with optimizing bass response in the room, and smoothing the frequency response in the transition region. There is nothing wrong with setting a crossover value of 80Hz for a speaker capable of going to 30Hz +/- 3dB, if the resulting bass response in the room is improved.


I completely agree.



> changing the crossover value does *not *affect the Audyssey filters.


I never said that it did, only that the change can affect the frequency response at the LP if the MultEQed response for either the sub or the speaker is less than optimum, which is not unusual.



> Lowering the crossover would result in a gap in the filtered sound.


Agreed.



> And finally, the LPF for LFE is not set by Audyssey. This setting affects only the LFE channel, not the redirected bass. The LFE channel only contains content up to 120Hz, by industry standard, and the default AVR setting is *always *120Hz. There are some who advocate lowering the LPF to 80Hz, but this is because there is an occasional music recording that has been poorly mixed, resulting in unintended LFE content that can "muddy" the bass sound. (Music normally does not use the LFE track.) Whether this situation applies to you or not can easily be tested by playing music content (especially multi-channel) with the main speakers set to Large (to defeat bass redirection), and then turned off (to isolate the sub(s) in order to hear the unwanted LFE content). This is an obscure argument (IMHO), and the best setting for LPF for LFE is 120Hz.


Agreed. Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## sdurani

AudiocRaver said:


> The equilateral triangle with speakers pointed at PLP is optimum for soundstage, rarely for imaging.


Why do you feel that way? 

The equilateral triangle placement with the speakers on-axis to the listener was the typical recommended starting point for stereo music playback. I can't see it as having been problematic for imaging, especially since it came from a time when people weren't using a centre speaker and therefore were relying completely on phantom imaging. 

What angles do you consider optimal for speaker spread and toe-in?


----------



## AudiocRaver

It is totally experience based. Agreed that the equilateral-triangle-on-axis approach seems like it _should_ be ideal, and with some speakers it is not bad, but it never seems _great_ in terms of sharpness, with "in the room and not part of the speakers" naturalness. For that, it seems they invariably end up off-axis (outward) and often more widely spaced, usually something like:
 

Admittedly, it is somewhat of an obsession for me, so when I hear "optimal" and "imaging" in a sentence together, that means "absolute best," even at the expense of natural soundstage width - I don't mind it being wider, even for home theater - and frequency response - the speakers are going to get some EQ anyway. And, although I have played with it with every set of speakers I can get into a room with where the owner will allow it, of course there are a lot of speakers that are untried and could totally defy that model. So far, it has held true.

Another view of "optimal" might mean "good in a balanced context," and then the equilateral triangle on axis model is a reasonable standard, although it still seems like marginalizing something that deserves better treatment.

Another personal note: Image Clarity has become a bit of a hot button for me because it seems to be almost completely overlooked in home theater setup, and with a little care can be lots better and can add so much. Typical MultEQ setup mic patterns ignore imaging and almost guarantee it to be poor to nonexistent.

Edit: In retrospect, I worded that last sentence a bit strongly. To be more accurate and objective: Typical MultEQ setup mic patterns do not emphasize strong imaging and in my experience give Image Clarity results which are very inconsistent. The next couple of posts discuss MultEQ and imaging in more detail.


----------



## AustinJerry

.


----------



## AudiocRaver

AustinJerry said:


> The Audyssey CTO has on repeated occasions stated that mic setup patterns have little or no influence on the results of a calibration, as long as the general guidelines are followed. In your guide, you have placed a great deal of emphasis on some very specific mic patterns. And now you claim that unless care is placed on the mic pattern, imaging will be poor to nonexistent.
> 
> How do you reconcile the difference in your approach to that of the Audyssey CTO, who we assume understands the inner workings of his product?


The reconciliation has nothing to do with the inner workings of the MultEQ product, which Chris undoubtedly knows more about than the rest of us put together. The MultEQ product is capable of delivering excellent imaging. It is not a technological shortcoming in any way, nor have I ever stated it as such, it is simply a matter of usage and priorities.

All due respect to Audyssey's talented people and their fine products, I can only surmise that they have chosen not to put a strong emphasis on imaging in their guidelines for use. That is perfectly fine. I addressed this in section 6 of the Guide and in post #30 of this thread. They have emphasized simplicity of approach for a customer that predominantly has a center channel and lots of speakers around him and historically has not put a huge emphasis on imaging himself. That strategy is sure to satisfy a lot of customers, and it has. And for those who do not get satisfaction with those simple guidelines, there is the Pro Installer Kit, and there is a network of trained professionals who can come to the rescue. It is really an admirable product strategy, and I applaud them for it and for their success with it.

If you search Audyssey's MultEQ FAQ page, the word "imaging" does not appear once. If you search their "Ask Audyssey" database, it is discussed in only one entry. To be fair, that one entry is the only time it was asked about. I ran MultEQ following Audyssey''s guidelines many times, and in terms of imaging, the results varied widely and were what I considered _good_ only occasionally.

OK, they are not out beating a drum about how to get great imaging with their product. That is their choice. I chose differently, to demonstrate that it is possible and to encourage that it be considered as an option, one which takes a little more work to attain, but not _that_ much more. Then the user is given the choice to emphasize or ignore it. Many will do just that. A few will hear solid imaging and like it.

I made a choice to prioritize imaging higher. I stand by my choice.


----------



## sdurani

AudiocRaver said:


> but it never seems _great_ in terms of sharpness


Understood. I know people who feel similarly about video, perferring not to have too large an image because it doesn't quite have the sharpness that a smaller display does. Of course, that's an illusion: i.e., moving closer or enlarging the image doesn't make details less sharp, just makes those details appear bigger. But it still feels like it's not as sharp. 

Same with audio. I know people who spread their L/R speakers much less than 60 degrees apart. Sure enough, details that are broader on my set-up are tack sharp on their set-ups. While they love the pin-point imaging of vocals or a piano, it usually sounds unnatural to me (my brain is muttering "hey, who shrank the orchestra"). 

So, while I understand where you're coming from, allow me to respectfully disagree. A 60 degree spread isn't sub-optimal for imaging, it's just not your preference. The former is objective, the latter subjective. Optimal imaging doesn't mean the smallest images.


----------



## Sonnie

Jerry... I don't mean any offense by this, but I hope we are not getting too wrapped up in the semantics of Wayne's responses, as the end result of what he has stated accomplishes what it needs to accomplish in reference to what Audyssey does. None the less, I do appreciate him clarifying his responses.

Granted, Audyssey technically does not set the crossover in the AVR, but because of what Audyssey measures in the speaker, the crossover points are determined. Without Audyssey, the crossover points would not change, except by the user manually changing it. 

The same goes for the response change when the main's crossover points are changed. Whether filters are changed or not (and I realize they are not), the result of the frequency response is going to the same as if the filters did change... so had someone misunderstood or had a quibble with his wording, it would really matter not, as the point is that things are going to change when you move the crossover point of the mains. Actually, if there is a filter above the crossover point of the mains and you raise the crossover point above that filter, then the filter is of no effect on the mains, so in essence the filter does change from being effective to being non-effective. Technicalities indeed.

I personally encourage anyone reading this to get REW or some sort of response measurement program and a mic and measure the response of the effect of Audyssey. No matter how good the Audyssey folks are (and we all know they are very good), I would not necessarily trust that Audyssey (or the AVR) gets everything right. I recommend changing crossover points, listening and measuring so that you can understand the change in response and determine if it is beneficial or not. I would also try the various mic positioning that is recommended here in the guide and see for yourself if it helps. Just because someone says it makes no difference, does not necessarily mean there is no difference, as we can testify to on many points of audio from trial and error.


----------



## AustinJerry

.


----------



## AudiocRaver

sdurani said:


> Understood. I know people who feel similarly about video, perferring not to have too large an image because it doesn't quite have the sharpness that a smaller display does. Of course, that's an illusion: i.e., moving closer or enlarging the image doesn't make details less sharp, just makes those details appear bigger. But it still feels like it's not as sharp.
> 
> Same with audio. I know people who spread their L/R speakers much less than 60 degrees apart. Sure enough, details that are broader on my set-up are tack sharp on their set-ups. While they love the pin-point imaging of vocals or a piano, it usually sounds unnatural to me (my brain is muttering "hey, who shrank the orchestra").
> 
> So, while I understand where you're coming from, allow me to respectfully disagree. A 60 degree spread isn't sub-optimal for imaging, it's just not your preference. The former is objective, the latter subjective. Optimal imaging doesn't mean the smallest images.


Great response! You have prompted me to realize that there is a lot to define about what I look for in imaging, or Image Clarity, and it will be great to hear what others look for who have made it a priority. I think it deserves its own thread. Give me a day or two - gotta get some other things done right now, priorities! - and I will get a thread going, referenced from here. I look forward to the discussion!


----------



## AudiocRaver

Jerry, I would like to hear what you get from your option 2, especially for optimizing a single seat. I got good results from option 3 as well.

The reclining seat back is an interesting variation. I have one for my 2-channel listening station. I usually EQ with the back upright for all measurements. When reclined, the frequency response shifts slightly but imaging remains solid.

I look forward to hearing your results.


----------



## crom0123

I just want to thank you very much AudiocRaver for your time and effort put in writing this setup guide.
I followed your guide and I got for the second time a real clean Imaging. First time I've got a good Imaging was by mistake, I didn't have enough time to run all 8 positions so I run only 3 or 4 very close together to the main list. position, exactly as you describe in your guide. Thank again, fantastic discovery, I really appreciate it! :TT


----------



## AudiocRaver

Thank you for the feedback! I am delighted that you are so happy with the results!

I am working on an update that will cover some clarifications and a few corrections. Check back in a couple of days. I will post a summary of any significant changes.

Cheers


----------



## RapalloAV

AudiocRaver said:


> Thank you for the feedback! I am delighted that you are so happy with the results!
> 
> I am working on an update that will cover some clarifications and a few corrections. Check back in a couple of days. I will post a summary of any significant changes.
> 
> Cheers


Looking forward to those updates.....


----------



## AustinJerry

.


----------



## RapalloAV

Nice summery Jerry, I too feel I've been getting better results using Waynes mic positions too.


----------



## Sonnie

That is significantly better Jerry. Are you measuring the sweep through all channels or just the mains + sub?

I often wonder about how we measure the response on our rooms, as Audyssey measures and equalizes each speaker individually and then in most cases we are measuring more speakers together. Perhaps it would be more fair of us to measure only one speaker, or just the mains with the sub, since the mains are typically symmetrically placed... at least I would think so in most dedicated home theater rooms, maybe not so much in odd shaped rooms.


----------



## AustinJerry

.


----------



## AustinJerry

RapalloAV said:


> Nice summery Jerry, I too feel I've been getting better results using Waynes mic positions too.


Glad to hear it, Murray. I assume you are using one of the other patterns, because the pattern I used is optimized (at least in my opinion), for the MLP.


----------



## RapalloAV

AustinJerry said:


> Glad to hear it, Murray. I assume you are using one of the other patterns, because the pattern I used is optimized (at least in my opinion), for the MLP.


Im using the 103 pattern for the centre row only, Ive decided to stay out of the front and back row and get better results when I do so.

Four mic positions round the centre false seat I make up (with towels) then the four seats are done with the 6" out from the back of the seat. 6" is where our head falls when measured from the back of the seat.



*103 - Fair-to-good Image Clarity and more emphasis on frequency response coverage; PLP center, 3 in forward, 3 in up, 3 up & 3 forward, plus points for 4 other LPs (2 for 6-point MultEQ)*

BTW, Wayne. I wish these were written this way, its unclear at first reading.....

103 - Fair-to-good Image Clarity and more emphasis on frequency response coverage; PLP center, 3" forward, 3" up, 3" up & 3" forward, plus points for 4 other LPs (2 for 6-point MultEQ)


----------



## seanpatrick

Hey there - I've been doing some reading regarding proper mike placement with regards to a high backed couch, and have run into some discrepancies .. Here, Auddessey's Chris Kyriakakis states that there won't really be any difference whether or not sound is reflected off the back of the couch 

" I don't think there is any conflict in the responses. The importance of the chair reflections has been blown a little out of proportion in some of the online forums. The effect (if any) is at high frequencies. The distance estimation method that MultEQ uses relies on low frequencies and doesn't even see the reflections from the back of the chair. "
December 22, 2009 04:59 pm ( https://audyssey.zendesk.com/forums/84181/entries/73284.html )

Then on page two of the above link, he responds to a reader: "

@Robert: it's best to place the mic slightly above the seat back to avoid reflections from it.
December 15, 2011 05:14 pm

He then goes on to suggest: The general rule is: the mic should be exactly where your ears are when you sit, *unless* that places the mic within 18" of the back wall." 

So which one is it? is it better to place the mic above the seat back to avoid reflections? or have it at ear level?

In addition, Chris says " The exact distance is not critical. Somewhere between 2-3 ft (1 m) is what we recommend." However in your guide for the best soundstage, you've got positions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 all within 3 inches of each other - lol. Though I don't doubt you've done extensive testing as evidenced by your graphs - I guess I'm not sure which set of position is ideal, the guide's or Auddessey's ... It's a great guide!! and I'm not trying to complain about anything - just confused.







[/IMG]


----------



## AustinJerry

.


----------



## seanpatrick

AustinJerry said:


> This topic has received a considerable amount of discussion, so you are likely to hear a number of different opinions. FWIW, here is mine.
> 
> If the back of your seat extends above the height of your ears when you are seated more or less upright, you already have a problem. The seat back is reflecting sound and affecting the quality of your audio. So, if you place the Audyssey mic such that it is below the top of the seat back, you have two potential problems. First, it is receiving the reflected sound from the seat back, which will skew the calibration. Second, it is also possible that you could be blocking the path of sound from the surround back speakers, which would also affect the calibration.
> 
> So, because of the height of the seat back, you are already in a position of having to make some compromises with respect to the calibration. I believe that positioning the mic so that it above the seat back, and out of the path of potential reflections, is a better choice than keeping the mic at ear height.
> 
> A third option, also not without controversity, is to temporarily remove the chair during the calibration. In the end, what matters is that you try several options and pick the one that results in the most pleasing sound for your specific situation.


Well option 3 seems like the worst option IMO - so I'll try option 1 and 2. I'm picking up my first XT32 receiver tomorrow so wanted to be ready for action  ... Of cource I suppose there is also option 4 - buy a new couch.


----------



## Sonnie

AustinJerry said:


> I measure each of the three front speakers individually, and then left+right. Since the speakers are set to small, bass management ensures that what is actually measured is left+subs, right+subs, etc.
> 
> I never bother measuring any of the surround speakers.


Is the response in your graph above an average of these... or just left+right+sub?


----------



## AudiocRaver

Jerry:

First of all, thank you for responding with so much detail. I know that takes a lot of time. Your response is a valuable contribution to the topic!



> I thought about why the frequency response would have improved so significantly, when all other changes in the room were tightly controlled. My theory is this: As a measurement mic is moved around in a listening room, it is common to see significant variations in frequency response at different spots. With a very tight mic pattern, these variations are kept to a minimum, so Audyssey has fewer variations to correct and does a better job. Regardless, since I am only concerned with one listening position, the better frequency response is very welcome (although I am not convinced I can actually hear the difference).


Nice summary, I agree. It becomes a fairly straightforward choice when one is optimizing for the PLP. When giving more priority to other LPs, it gets a little harder. I, too, am in the "favor the PLP" camp. I figure in most households there is one discriminating listener, and as long as the sound is reasonably good elsewhere, other listeners will be more than satisfied.



> I did a network save for my Saturday calibration. Using this Denon capability allows for a reasonably quick comparison between two calibrations (a configuration load takes ~5 minutes).


That is a NICE feature, worth looking for if one plans to play with MultEQ very much.



> I have performed many Audyssey calibrations, and have developed a repeatable process with attention to detail that produces remarkably predictable and repeatable results.


Totally agree, attention to detail is a key to repeatability and success with MultEQ in general. Vital for those without network save/restore capability.



> After several days of almost constant listening, both music and movies/TV, I am convinced that the calibration is definitely a "keeper"


I am truly pleased. I sincerely appreciate your willingness to give the approach an objective trial and report back with so much information. Thank you for the feedback.


----------



## AudiocRaver

RapalloAV said:


> Im using the 103 pattern for the centre row only, Ive decided to stay out of the front and back row and get better results when I do so.


It can be hard to let go of the idea of improving all the seats in the house. Sounds like it was a wise move.



> BTW, Wayne. I wish these were written this way, its unclear at first reading.....
> 
> 103 - Fair-to-good Image Clarity and more emphasis on frequency response coverage; PLP center, 3" forward, 3" up, 3" up & 3" forward, plus points for 4 other LPs (2 for 6-point MultEQ)


Yeah, I need to decompress some of those abbreviated descriptions. It is on my todo list.

Glad you are getting good results in your room.


----------



## AudiocRaver

seanpatrick said:


> Hey there - I've been doing some reading regarding proper mike placement with regards to a high backed couch, and have run into some discrepancies .. Here, Auddessey's Chris Kyriakakis states that there won't really be any difference whether or not sound is reflected off the back of the couch
> 
> " I don't think there is any conflict in the responses. The importance of the chair reflections has been blown a little out of proportion in some of the online forums. The effect (if any) is at high frequencies. The distance estimation method that MultEQ uses relies on low frequencies and doesn't even see the reflections from the back of the chair. "
> December 22, 2009 04:59 pm ( https://audyssey.zendesk.com/forums/84181/entries/73284.html )
> 
> Then on page two of the above link, he responds to a reader: "
> 
> @Robert: it's best to place the mic slightly above the seat back to avoid reflections from it.
> December 15, 2011 05:14 pm
> 
> He then goes on to suggest: The general rule is: the mic should be exactly where your ears are when you sit, *unless* that places the mic within 18" of the back wall."
> 
> So which one is it? is it better to place the mic above the seat back to avoid reflections? or have it at ear level?
> 
> In addition, Chris says " The exact distance is not critical. Somewhere between 2-3 ft (1 m) is what we recommend." However in your guide for the best soundstage, you've got positions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 all within 3 inches of each other - lol. Though I don't doubt you've done extensive testing as evidenced by your graphs - I guess I'm not sure which set of position is ideal, the guide's or Auddessey's ... It's a great guide!! and I'm not trying to complain about anything - just confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/IMG]





AustinJerry said:


> This topic has received a considerable amount of discussion, so you are likely to hear a number of different opinions. FWIW, here is mine.
> 
> If the back of your seat extends above the height of your ears when you are seated more or less upright, you already have a problem. The seat back is reflecting sound and affecting the quality of your audio. So, if you place the Audyssey mic such that it is below the top of the seat back, you have two potential problems. First, it is receiving the reflected sound from the seat back, which will skew the calibration. Second, it is also possible that you could be blocking the path of sound from the surround back speakers, which would also affect the calibration.
> 
> So, because of the height of the seat back, you are already in a position of having to make some compromises with respect to the calibration. I believe that positioning the mic so that it above the seat back, and out of the path of potential reflections, is a better choice than keeping the mic at ear height.
> 
> A third option, also not without controversity, is to temporarily remove the chair during the calibration. In the end, what matters is that you try several options and pick the one that results in the most pleasing sound for your specific situation.


This is definitely a tougher topic to resolve. *AustinJerry* summarized the issues nicely.

The frequencies involved in the reflections/reinforcements/cancellations fall in the upper-mid frequency range (as low as 2 KHz, usually 4 to 8 KHz) and they are definitely responded to by the MultEQ calibration process. I tried some innovative ways to circumvent the reflections during MultEQ calibration - they all failed. My favorite was a rolled-up sock about 4 inches in diameter filling the space between the back of the chair and the tip of the mic so there would be no reflection. After calibration, I first measured the frequency response. It was fabulous! Then I sat down to listen - the soundstage and imaging were non-existent! (I was still working on decent mic patterns - I might give it another try with a known good mic pattern some day.)

Anyway, in summary:

The most comfortable seats usually have high backs.
The reflections are definitely an audible issue.
MultEQ does respond at the frequencies involved.
The best sound would be without a high back, above about shoulder height, but comfort is an important part of enjoying music and movies, so we have to work with them.
There is no magic bullet approach. The sound will be compromised for comfort.

How to minimize the compromise? My recommendations in order:


Place the mic at ear position in front of the seat back AND, assuming multiple mic positions in front of same/similar seat backs, space them all a slightly different distance forward from the seat back (one at 3", one at 4", one at 5", etc.). No one seems to agree with this idea, and I understand it appears problematic. The simplified logic for why it should work: MultEQ will be responding to the same reflection the ear would be hearing, and should compensate perfectly, right? But if you move your head forward you get a different result. HOWEVER, by using different distances from the seat back for each mic position, MultEQ ends up flattening out the results of those different reflections _fairly well_, and the overall result is representative of the LP.
Remove the chair for calibration. This is actually a pretty good option, but not practical for a lot of rooms/furniture. With the furniture back in place, the local sonic situation does change somewhat, so it is not a perfect solution. In my testing, it gave results about as good as option 1, it is just harder to do and measurements become a little more difficult (get a laser distance meter!).
Place the mic one to two feet above the chair back. I have seen this give pretty good results and I have seen it give poor results. If you have a calibrated mic and REW to verify the final result with, it becomes a very good option, because then you can verify the result and find a "proxy" calibration height that represents the LP accurately but without the reflection. Without the benefit of that verification, the result becomes pretty iffy, in my experience.

None of these options is fantastic and none of them is horrible. They are all compromises. And it is a close call saying which is better or worse. Sorry the answer is not more clear cut.


----------



## AustinJerry

.


----------



## AustinJerry

.


----------



## AudiocRaver

AustinJerry said:


> I find the differences between calibrations with the chair in place and with it removed are very minor.


My findings, too. My two-channel comfy recliner spins 360 degrees and I generally just give it a spin out of the way when EQing there (near field, so that is far enough out of the way), always happy with the result.


----------



## seanpatrick

Well I've done an initial run through with the new XT32 receiver - and it sounds pretty good thus far. Mind you it's not blowing me away - but I'll give it some time to work on me before I pass judgement on this configuration. For the initial run through ( I'm off to work shortly so won't do another one until tonight ( while making sure I save this initial one to re load if I don't like it ). I used the standard Auddessey mic configuration while doing it, covering the three couch seats, then three positions in front, then back on the couch in between 1 and 3, and 1 and 2 for mic positions 7, and 8 respectively. I noticed that although my head is below the back of the couch at listening position, the rear speakers at least still have a fairly unobstructed view of my LP, as my rears are about 2 feet above my LP - with about 6 feet in between them and the LP - so I don't see sound reflections being too problematic in that respect. I gather the reflections I need to be most concerned with are those of the fronts ( L,R,C ) bouncing off the back of the couch and back on the mic? correct? - I might lower the mic an inch or two to my actual ear level and try it out tonight - see how it is, then try again with the recommended LP's from this guide again and compare the two. I'll let you know how it goes! Thanks for all your informed opinions thus far - I'm taking all your advice into consideration. Unfortunately after spending 1200 on the X 4000 a new couch isn't a feasible option for me atm - so hopefully I'll get this tweaked as best I can with what I've got


----------



## AustinJerry

.


----------



## seanpatrick

AustinJerry said:


> What material is your couch made of? If it is leather, which is quite reflective, then at least throw something non-reflective over the seat back. Something like a comforter or soft blanket will reduce the reflections. If the couch is fabric, then not to worry so much.


It's fabric... 

With the mic position a few inches above LP: 



With the mic AT the LP:


----------



## AudiocRaver

seanpatrick said:


> I gather the reflections I need to be most concerned with are those of the fronts ( L,R,C ) bouncing off the back of the couch and back on the mic? correct?


Correct.



> - I might lower the mic an inch or two to my actual ear level and try it out tonight - see how it is, then try again with the recommended LP's from this guide again and compare the two.


You can guess what I would recommend.



> Unfortunately after spending 1200 on the X 4000 a new couch isn't a feasible option for me atm - so hopefully I'll get this tweaked as best I can with what I've got


Reality - can't live without it. Something like that.

We look forward to your next report.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Whatever the mic config, at least stagger the distance from sofa back to mic, make it a little different at each position.


----------



## AustinJerry

.


----------



## seanpatrick

Well... I managed to run one more test before it got too late for the Audyssey chirps - but for the life of me I can't find the setting in the AVR's web browser to save my settings. On my Marantz it was obvious - here I've scoured every menu - AND the net looking for instructions - but all I've found is " sometimes with the X 4000 series of receiver you can only access it with Internet Explorer ". Anyways I'll call Denon tomorrow and find out where it is, as this will allow me to save multiple configs and quickly switch between them to compare what I think sounds best. As it is, I was only able to compare my results to the previous results, which I hadn't really heard since I left for work earlier - so I can't tell if it's better or not. I can say though that neither of the tests sound _better _ then my Marantz 6007 with Audyssey MultiEQXT - maybe equal - but I'm hoping that I can beat that as the step up from MultiEQ XT to XT32 is supposed to be superlative ( or so everyone raves about )..
For the latest ( second ) test I used the HTS guide to mic positioning, and had my mic at ear level ( below the cusions ) - it sounds good - but again it's hard to compare it to the other test as that was hours ago. My plan is to save 4 configurations and test between them - that being the HTS recommendations @ ear level, then the same again but above the back seat cushions, then the Audyssey recommendations, same as above, @ ear level then above LP. 
As far as the tripod not being ideal - believe it or not I think I have might have one of the mic stands in the above link @ work, as we have a lot of string / piano concerts where I'm at. In fact I'm sure we have one - not sure how the Audyssey mic will attach to it as it's meant to hold actual microphones though. Perhaps I can tape it on the end of the stand. If I mark the mic positions on the couch with tape for use w/ the tripod, would this not be about equal though? as the positioning would be the same for it's respective tests - and with a big stand I'd end up having to do the same on the floor.


----------



## AudiocRaver

seanpatrick said:


> If I mark the mic positions on the couch with tape for use w/ the tripod, would this not be about equal though? as the positioning would be the same for it's respective tests - and with a big stand I'd end up having to do the same on the floor.


A mic stand with boom is valuable in this work. Doesn't have to be expensive, I think mine cost $20 and came with a throw-away dynamic mic and cable. For now, if you have a way to repeat positioning down to the 1/2 inch you should be OK. When you get a stand, you will need duct tape (ugly but effective) or adapter(s). My suggestions are in section 2 of the Guide.


----------



## AustinJerry

.


----------



## seanpatrick

[
I spent about 3 hours today trying to figure out how to get the Save / Load feature to work. No one at Denon could tell me how to do it other then referencing the manual. With help from some other knowledgeable folks, I finally - on a last ditch effort, figured it out. 1. The X-4000 load / save feature will NOT come up in any browser other then Internet Explorer for some reason. 2. I have windows 8.1, with IE 11, it won't come up in IE 11, you can only use 8, 9, or 10. Completely ridiculous. Finally I tried going into the compitability settings for IE 11 ( under the tools menu ) and adding the Denon's IP address into " run website with compatibility settings " and was able to get it up. I'll report back with more results when I can save and replay them back  
As far as the boom mic goes - Audyssey actually recommends using a small tripod over a boom mic - to minimize reflections from the boom mic itself - but this contradicts what they said initially, " the mic being above the back of the sofa is an overblown problem " - in that if it's so sensitive as to have a BOOM interfere - imagine what a sofa back will do.
I'm going to borrow a boom mic tonight - and if I get home in time run through a couple of tests ( whatever I can fit in before 11 - my neighbors are not going to like much later )


View attachment 43232
[/QUOTE]


----------



## AudiocRaver

I tend to agree on the boom reflection thing. If it is an issue, it will be an issue no matter what kind of stand you use. With any kind of stand and a little care you can keep the stand/boom out of the signal path, that is the main thing.


----------



## seanpatrick

Well I ran two more tests tonight - with the boom mic I borrowed from work, using both the suggested Audessey and the HTS guide mic patterns. First I ran through Auddessey's 8 positions, with my mic placed at the same height for the 8 measurements - with the top JUST clearing the back of the couch. I should note for BOTH tests I left 30 cm of clearance between the mic and the back of the couch.










Measurements 4, 5, and 6 were not taken quite as far out as the above suggests - they were taken an extra 30 cm further out, towards the edge of the cushion. Positions 7 and 8 were taken between 1 and 2, then 2 and 3 - at the same 30cm away from the couch back.

I then used the HTS guide to mic positions. Again I started 30 cm away from the couch for measurement one, then moved 30 cm out for measurement 2. Another change was that the mic was about two inches below the tests above, except for measurements 3 and 4 when they were moved up ( as per HTS guides instructions ). I then proceeded to measure according to plan.



The results have been good - on BOTH fronts. I've spent the most time listening to the HTS mic pattern set up thus far - but will switch back tomorrow for more listening of the Audessey patterns. In fact they are both a measurable improvement over my first two tests. I can only surmise that making sure the mic was a minimum distance of 30 cm away from the back for all the tests made a large difference. Obviously if I had a lower backed couch - I would adhere more strictly to the HTS guides rules about 3 inch difference from the LP in the first 6 tests.. but again as I don't have the luxury of a lower couch I had to make the above adjustments. In any case as I sit here listening to the fruits of my labor - I think I can attest to the fact that BOTH patterns work quite well. If I DO decide on one over the other, it will be purely subjective - and any difference quite possibly my imagination. 
If I ever really get motivated - I'll use REW to measure my responses with the two tests ( which I'll save ) ... but for now - I'm just going to spend some quality time with the X 4000  Thanks again to all the folks at HTS for their insight, and especially AudiocRaver for his thorough and informative guide!


----------



## AudiocRaver

The main thing is that you got a result you are happy with. And thank you for sharing your approach in detail so we can all learn from your experience. The more knowledge shared the better.

Of course we would love to see your results as measured by REW, when you can get to it.:R

Enjoy the new AVR.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Here is a list of links to microphone stands and adapters and other accessories that might be useful. It will be added to the Guide, too.


Tape Measure, 25 Feet.
Bosch DLR130K Digital Distance Measurer.
Quartet Classic Comfort MP2703GQ Laser Pointer; this one does not have a metal "on" switch, but I had one that lasted over 10 years/
Galaxy CM-140 Sound Level Meter from Cross Spectrum Labs; if you also have a calibrated Measurement Mic, the Verified model will be sufficient; if this will be your frequency response measurement instrument, get the Verified-Plus model with full frequency response calibration.
On Stage Stands MS7701 Tripod Boom Microphone Stand
DR Pro DR256 MS1500BK Low Profile Mic Boom Stand
Giottos MH1004-320 Swivel-Head Adapter, 3/8 in female base, 1/4 in male head; you will need the next item along with this
AKG KM216 Thread Adapter, 5/8 in female to 3/8 in male; you will need the previous item along with this
On Stage Stands QK2B Quick Release Mic Clip Adapter; if you have more than one mic stand you should have one per mic stand


----------



## AudiocRaver

Just posted an update to the Audyssey MultEQ FAQ and Setup Guide. Here is a summary of the changes.

I look forward to your feedback.

Wayne


----------



## cavchameleon

Wayne,

I found that spreading out the mic positions to represent a larger area gave me better results. Here is the pattern I used (position 1 was the only critical one being first of course for distance and timing). This is with XT32 and the Pro Kit, but with the regular 8 positions, I followed pretty much the same philosophy. This is in a very small room, hence the distance from the couch to the side walls. The rear is also pretty close, and that wall is treated.


----------



## Sonnie

Ray... did you compare only the MLP differences with and without?

What speakers are you measuring for comparison?


----------



## AudiocRaver

cavchameleon said:


> I found that spreading out the mic positions to represent a larger area gave me better results.


First, I am glad you were able to get a satisfactory result.

Just curious, what do you mean by "better?" Judging by sound? What qualities? Did you get flatter measurements with REW? Measured where? I know you are busy and it takes time to answer with details - any detail you can offer is helpful to us.

Thank you for the feedback!


----------



## AustinJerry

BTW, Wayne, I thought I would provide some additional feedback after listening to my most recent calibration with what I am calling your "tight" mic placements.

When I listen to a music source in stereo mode, especially a simple recording with a single voice and acoustic instruments, the "sweet spot" is so narrow that I can hear a distinct change in imaging when I move my head an inch or two in either direction. Since I don't keep my head in a vise, I found this anomaly to be somewhat disconcerting. Reverting to my previous calibration eliminated the anomaly, confirming my suspicion that it was being caused by the recent calibration test.

I would be interested to hear your results if you were to test this out yourself.


----------



## AudiocRaver

AustinJerry said:


> BTW, Wayne, I thought I would provide some additional feedback after listening to my most recent calibration with what I am calling your "tight" mic placements.
> 
> When I listen to a music source in stereo mode, especially a simple recording with a single voice and acoustic instruments, the "sweet spot" is so narrow that I can hear a distinct change in imaging when I move my head an inch or two in either direction. Since I don't keep my head in a vise, I found this anomaly to be somewhat disconcerting. Reverting to my previous calibration eliminated the anomaly, confirming my suspicion that it was being caused by the recent calibration test.
> 
> I would be interested to hear your results if you were to test this out yourself.


Jerry,

If the change you experienced is the apparent shift in position of the phantom source, that is (to my understanding) a characteristic of well-defined imaging, whether it is achieved by a MultEQ Setup Mic Pattern or by any other method. The definition remains clear, but the listener's location relative to the source speakers causes that image shift as the head moves. The effect is much smaller, perhaps unnoticeable with a cinema mix because of the center channel. If you are talking about something different, I would like to understand in more detail. I did not ever notice that the Image Clarity was only well defined at one head location and went soft when the head moved around, if that is what you mean.

It is a downside of well-defined imaging and soundstage from a stereo source that they move around as the listener moves. This is physics and psycho-acoustics at work. Again, primarily-cinema listeners do not run into this, so it would stand out to them.

You are an experienced listener and probably understand all of this, I am defining it as clearly as I can for listeners who might have less experience with two-channel listening.

If I remember correctly, you have a high-backed chair, and the acoustical landscape around a chair like that will be an influence on well-defined sound and size of sweet spot. If that is the case, there are two ways of looking at it:
Being able to get well-defined imaging and soundstage at all is sometimes a minor miracle, and having a narrow sweet spot, especially with certain furniture, is a price to be dealt with (my view).
Alternately, having the flexibility to move around without a shift in image location might preferred by some, and if softer definition is what it takes to get that flexibility, it is worth the sacrifice (a completely valid alternative view).
The width and shape of the chair might be a factor. My listening chair's back is wide and flat - that undoubtedly helps with the sweet spot issues.

For me personally, well-defined imaging and soundstage are important enough to the listening experience that I don't give a second thought to head location not moving much. To make it worse, I do a lot with near-field monitoring, so I am conditioned to work with a fairly small sweet spot.

My overall approach to the Audyssey MultEQ Guide was to make well-defined imaging and soundstage an available experience and an option for surround system listeners, providing the flexibility through Setup Mic Pattern choice to emphasize it or de-emphasize it. Clearly there are tradeoffs in these choices, and some will prefer listener location flexibility while accepting softer image definition to get it.


----------



## AustinJerry

Keep in mind for a moment that I am switching between two Audyssey calibrations using the Denon configuration load utility. So, the only thing that is changing is the calibration. If you recall from a previous posting that I made, the two calibrations were conducted only a day apart, using the same spot as the MLP, and all other factors kept as constant as possible. The chair, the speaker toe-in, etc. can be considered constants when comparing the two results.

I agree that a well-defined image can collapse if the listener moves too far out of the sweet spot. But what I am hearing is an acute sensitivity to head movement that I have not experienced before. I'm talking about a 1" movement, or a slight turn of the head. If this is indeed a result of better imaging with a tight mic pattern, I am just saying that I find it somewhat unpleasant.

Another thing that might be a contributing factor is speaker toe-in. In an earlier post, you showed a diagram representing the toe-in angle that you use. My speakers are slightly more angled towards the MLP, aimed at a spot approximately 1' behind where my head is.

Regardless, I am only reporting this observation in the hopes that others who experiment with your mic placements can see if they observe something similar to my experience, using two-channel music sources, of course. It is certainly not meant as a criticism in any way.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Jerry,

Beg pardon, so you are saying that two runs through the Setup process using the same Setup Mic Pattern and all other factors kept constant gave two different results, sounding about the same right at the PLP spot but with one of the two being hyper-position-dependent. And you are going back and forth between those two saved results using network save/restore. Do I have that right?

The first thing that comes to mind is that occasionally one of the front main speaker distance settings has ended up being off by 1/2 a foot and the sound is pretty strange, including position dependence. Did you look at the speaker distance settings? I try to always check them and, if they do not match between L and R mains, to run Setup again. I have heard of no explanation why this might happen.

Edit: I certainly agree that the effect you are describing sounds unnatural and uncomfortable. I would not say it sounds like a "normal" result of the suggested approach.


----------



## AustinJerry

OK, let me describe this once more.

A week ago on Saturday, after adding several acoustic panels, I ran a fresh Audyssey calibration using a more "traditional" mic placement pattern, I.e. 8 positions spaced 12" apart. The MLP for this calibration was marked with an adhesive dot on the floor. Call this "Calibration 1".

The following day, I ran a second calibration, using the same MLP mark, but with the mic placement according to your recommendations, I.e. 3" spacing, six positions, mic raised for two positions by 3". All other potential variables were kept the same. Call this "Calibration 2". As I reported previously, I compared the speaker trim settings and distances between the two calibrations, and they were essentially the same. The only observed difference was that Calibration 2 produced a flatter frequency response than Calibration 1, measured at the MLP.

So, as I reported recently, after listening closely to Calibration 2 for a number of days, I started noticing this anomaly that when my head moved slightly, I heard a distinct shift in the image (when listening to two-channel music sources in stereo mode). I then switched back and forth between Calibration 1 and Calibration 2, listening to the same music source material, paying close attention to what I was hearing as I shifted my head a small distance, or rotated my head slightly. The image shift was very evident when Calibration 2 was active, but I couldn't hear the same anomaly when Calibration 1 was active.

So, since everything else was kept constant, my conclusion is that the difference in mic spacing may be contributing to what I am hearing. I emphasize the word "may", because proving this would entail more effort than I am willing to undertake. My only reason for reporting my observations is to encourage others to see if they might have a similar experience.


----------



## cavchameleon

AudiocRaver said:


> First, I am glad you were able to get a satisfactory result.
> 
> Just curious, what do you mean by "better?" Judging by sound? What qualities? Did you get flatter measurements with REW? Measured where? I know you are busy and it takes time to answer with details - any detail you can offer is helpful to us.
> 
> Thank you for the feedback!


First off, I don't have my REW or Omnimic graphs since I changed out my computers and have not run them again (need to do it when time permits). I will re-run them in the future here (have 2 calibrated mics from Cross Spectrum to use for REW, and also have the Dayton Audio OmniMic V2 Kit). What I have found is that, using a very tight mic array for calibration yielded in the sound being good only at the MLP and not the other seats. In spreading out the mic array for the Audyssey calibration, the result yielded a much more balanced sound accross the seating postions. So, if only one person is siting in the MLP, then a tight array may be just fine but IMO this is not good accross a larger area (and our 'larger' area is just an 84" couch). There is always other in there watching a movie, so I like to have a more balanced sound accross the seating positions. Even without measuring, it's very obvious just by moving my head a foot or so (as AustinJerry suggests). 

I've tried many iterations of calibrating with Audyssey (have used Audyssey sine 2006). With the Pro Kit, I've tried anywhere from just 5 measurements all the way to 32 and found there were diminishing returns after 15 (even after ther first 10). When I did the 32 measurements, I simply did the same positions horizontally as in my diagram and then did another set 3 inches above the first set with the last two measurements next to the MLP. This was just out of curiosity.

I can't say this will be the case in all rooms but what I've experienced in our rooms.


----------



## cavchameleon

Sonnie said:


> Ray... did you compare only the MLP differences with and without?
> 
> What speakers are you measuring for comparison?


Sonnie,

The dedicated media room has all NHT Classic speakers which are basic dynamic speakers (Fours, Threes, ThreeC, Twos, Absolute Zero's) in an 11.2 setup (with wides, heights, and rears included). The room is VERY small so heavily treated. 

I've found the results the same in our other rooms also with Audyssey though - in which spreading the mic array for claibration giving the best overall results. When I say spreading, they are only about 1 foot apart and all within the range of 30degrees from speaker tweeters. The other rooms have different speakers with pratically the same results: Bedroom had Parasound in-walls, Son's room has Pinnacle Black Diamond speakers all around, Living room with NHT, and Editing room with Fosgate Audionics FA51.0 (Fosgate got out of this area, so these were the last monitors they made).

All the rooms are fairly small with only the Media Room being acoustically treated (wife wouldn't allow it anywhere else - but I get to do anything I want in the media room).


----------



## AudiocRaver

AustinJerry said:


> OK, let me describe this once more.
> 
> A week ago on Saturday, after adding several acoustic panels, I ran a fresh Audyssey calibration using a more "traditional" mic placement pattern, I.e. 8 positions spaced 12" apart. The MLP for this calibration was marked with an adhesive dot on the floor. Call this "Calibration 1".
> 
> The following day, I ran a second calibration, using the same MLP mark, but with the mic placement according to your recommendations, I.e. 3" spacing, six positions, mic raised for two positions by 3". All other potential variables were kept the same. Call this "Calibration 2". As I reported previously, I compared the speaker trim settings and distances between the two calibrations, and they were essentially the same. The only observed difference was that Calibration 2 produced a flatter frequency response than Calibration 1, measured at the MLP.
> 
> So, as I reported recently, after listening closely to Calibration 2 for a number of days, I started noticing this anomaly that when my head moved slightly, I heard a distinct shift in the image (when listening to two-channel music sources in stereo mode). I then switched back and forth between Calibration 1 and Calibration 2, listening to the same music source material, paying close attention to what I was hearing as I shifted my head a small distance, or rotated my head slightly. The image shift was very evident when Calibration 2 was active, but I couldn't hear the same anomaly when Calibration 1 was active.
> 
> So, since everything else was kept constant, my conclusion is that the difference in mic spacing may be contributing to what I am hearing. I emphasize the word "may", because proving this would entail more effort than I am willing to undertake. My only reason for reporting my observations is to encourage others to see if they might have a similar experience.


OK, I get it, and again, beg pardon for needing the extra explanations. Thank you for the extra detail. And I understand you are busy and don't have unlimited time to experiment with it further. My only observations are:

An approach to speaker setup and tuning that emphasizes Image Clarity and soundstage will always be more sensitive to head position than one that does not, and that effect will be more evident with stereo program material in two-channel mode.
I have not observed hyper-sensitivity, or any greater sensitivity, to that effect via these MultEQ Setup Mic Patterns relative to accomplishing Image Clarity by other means.
Sensitivity to head position vs. broad head position flexibility is a tradeoff to be considered where there is greater acoustical variation at play. High seat backs, with their comfort factor, also give more acoustical variation to deal with, and some listeners will prefer the softer and more flexible correction of a typical Setup Mic Pattern in a situation like that.
As always, I appreciate your input.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Ray,

Thanks for the feedback. My own observations with a wide sofa and a tight Setup Mic Pattern at the PLP were that there was very little variation from seat to seat. Of course this will vary from situation to situation. I only have one room like that to work with, so only the one data point.

As you recall, the approach in our MultEQ Guide was designed to

Give listeners the opportunity to hear their system at its best at the PLP, then
Determine how much variation they can hear from there to the other listening positions, then
Decide what listening qualities to emphasize or de-emphasize with their final Setup Mic Pattern...
...which is precisely what you have done. I am glad you are happy with your final result, that is ALWAYS the main goal, however it is achieved.


----------



## cavchameleon

AudiocRaver said:


> Ray,
> 
> Thanks for the feedback. My own observations with a wide sofa and a tight Setup Mic Pattern at the PLP were that there was very little variation from seat to seat. Of course this will vary from situation to situation. I only have one room like that to work with, so only the one data point.
> 
> As you recall, the approach in our MultEQ Guide was designed to
> 
> Give listeners the opportunity to hear their system at its best at the PLP, then
> Determine how much variation they can hear from there to the other listening positions, then
> Decide what listening qualities to emphasize or de-emphasize with their final Setup Mic Pattern...
> ...which is precisely what you have done. I am glad you are happy with your final result, that is ALWAYS the main goal, however it is achieved.



Wayne,

Thanks for the comments and thoughts. I very much agree with your last sentence!!! Also, thanks for all your efforts. When time affords I'd like to re-measure and will post the results.


----------



## seanpatrick

Just thought I'd pipe in with my opinion at this point. I've done several run-throughs of Audyssey the past week or so. With respect to the couch position / high backed couch, I earlier noted that while using either the HTS placement guide or Audyssey's mic placement recommendations - I was able to improve the over all imaging by moving my mic forward ( of the back of the couch) by 30cm ( metric, sorry Yanks!  ) of all the recommended measuring points, but following them exactly otherwise. I must amend that - I've found by FAR the best results I've had thus far, is to place the mic @ ear level exactly, and follow either or sets of mic layouts to the letter, ( or in this case, number - hardy har har ) BUT, to move the couch back by 30 - 50 cm instead. So I placed my mic at ear position in the MLP, marked of the exact position of my couch with tape so I could move it back to the exact position I had it at, then moved the couch back by a foot and a half ( there ya go!  ) - and found thus far it's by FAR the best option. Anyways - thought I'd chime in! cheers!


----------



## AudiocRaver

seanpatrick said:


> Just thought I'd pipe in with my opinion at this point. I've done several run-throughs of Audyssey the past week or so. With respect to the couch position / high backed couch, I earlier noted that while using either the HTS placement guide or Audyssey's mic placement recommendations - I was able to improve the over all imaging by moving my mic forward ( of the back of the couch) by 30cm ( metric, sorry Yanks!  ) of all the recommended measuring points, but following them exactly otherwise. I must amend that - I've found by FAR the best results I've had thus far, is to place the mic @ ear level exactly, and follow either or sets of mic layouts to the letter, ( or in this case, number - hardy har har ) BUT, to move the couch back by 30 - 50 cm instead. So I placed my mic at ear position in the MLP, marked of the exact position of my couch with tape so I could move it back to the exact position I had it at, then moved the couch back by a foot and a half ( there ya go!  ) - and found thus far it's by FAR the best option. Anyways - thought I'd chime in! cheers!


I will agree, in fact I did the very same thing at one point and got excellent results. Not always an option with some furniture/rooms, but where it is, it is worth a try. The frequency response changes a little when the furniture moves back, but the imaging tends to remain solid.

Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Thomasdk1405

Hi !
Just found this - and I'm so happy (before I even have tried it). Will have a go tomorrow - now I wonder - I have the SVS AS-EQ1 that is always configured before I run audyssey. Should I use the same mic positions as you describe (8 pos for XT) or should I use more - or is it a waste of time ? Only have one sub - and some also state that if you only have one sub - there is no need to use the AS-EQ1 (bought it when I had a yamaha receiver with no audyssey). Now I have a Onkyo 5007.
Always thought that the sound of audyssey was wrong or dull sounding - I'm so excited to try this - always did exactly as manual told / audyssey homepage. Thank you very much for writing this huge guide / help !!

/Thomas


----------



## AudiocRaver

Hey,Thomas, 8 points should be plenty unless you have a really unique room. Even then it usually does the job. We look forward to hearing about your results!


----------



## paultimm

I have a question reguarding the use of 4 subwoofers. I have the new Denon x4000, with dual outputs. If i split each one once, i put one subwoofer up front and one the right back and the left would be the same manner, one up front the other in the left back. Seanpatrick or anybody else know how to set the level of each one to acheive the 75 decebels and required by adussey. Or do I just use one subwoofer and gradually bring up the back subs. Sorry if this is the wrong post to bring this up, but just want to know how to set up xt32 properly using 4 sub with 2 outputs.


----------



## AustinJerry

I have 4 subs as well, and an AVR with MultEQ XT32, just like you. You have two things to deal with, the sub levels, and the sub delay (distance) settings.

First, the level settings. Since the subs will be placed in different spots in the room, and since each sub's interaction with the room depends on where it is placed, you should use a procedure called gain-matching to set each sub's level. I assume that you have, at a minimum, a decent sound pressure meter. If you have a measurement system like REW, that is even better. Here is a basic gain-matching procedure using an SPL:

- Make sure any internal crossovers on the subs are disabled before starting, and that each sub's phase control is set to zero.
- Turn off all subs except the first one.
- On your AVR, generate the sub level test tone for the channel the first sub is connected to.
- Turn on the SPL, set it to Slow, C-Weighting, get close to the first sub, and point the SPL at the sub's dust cone, 1-2 inches away. Adjust the sub's gain control until it reads 90dB (I have found this a good value as a starting point).
- Repeat the process for the other three subs, holding the SPL close, and adjusting to the same 90dB level.

This procedure ensures that each sub is outputting the same sound level, independent of the room's effect.

Now, run the Audyssey calibration, but do not change the sub gains regardless of what the Audyssey sub level-setting screen says. Finish your calibration following Wayne's excellent instructions, and when finished check the resulting sub channel trim settings in the AVR. If the trim settings are any value other than the "max" values (by max, I mean -12 or +12 on a Denon AVR), then you are OK. If the trims are maxed, then you need to go back to the gain-matching procedure and use a different setting from the 90dB level (higher or lower, depending on the Audyssey results).

The distance settings may or may not be easier for you, depending on your sub placement options. Since you only have two sub channels and two distance settings, the ideal configuration would be to have two pairs of subs in which the two subs within a pair are equidistant from the MLP. This results in delay settings that are correct for all four subs. For example, I have two subs in the front of the room at the 1/4 and 3/4 width spots, equidistant from the MLP. I have two subs on the back wall, also placed such that they are equidistant from the MLP.

You may find this approach yields good results. However, tuning in four subs is never a simple process, and your results may vary. Regardless, unless you have a measurement system like REW, the job is going to be especially difficult.


----------



## paultimm

Where do I find the sub channel trim level on the denon, I have never seen this anywhere. Where wold it be located within the menu?


----------



## AustinJerry

The same place you find the other speaker level settings, under Speakers/Manual Setup/Levels.


----------



## paultimm

Austinjerry, is there forum here that discusses this topic about the use of 4 subwoofers a little more In depth using xt32? Or is the way you described the simplest way to do it?


----------



## AustinJerry

As I said before, there is no "simple" way to do it, and I know of no thread that is dedicated to this subject. You really need a measurement system like REW to do a good job. You can start with my recommendations if you like.


----------



## AudiocRaver

I am not a multiple-sub setup expert. *AustinJerry*'s process seems to cover everything it needs to, is simple and effective.

Jerry, as always, thank you very much for the detailed response

*paultimm*, I took the liberty of copying your request to a new thread in the System Setup and Connection forum. Perhaps someone there will have an idea, although I have a hard time imagining a simpler approach than that outlined here.


----------



## AustinJerry

Thank you, Wayne.

Adding a little more data, here is an REW measurement of the 4-sub response:


----------



## AudiocRaver

That looks pretty stellar to me, from 15 Hz to 180 Hz - couldn't wish for it to be much flatter. I'm a little curious what happens above 200 Hz, it almost looks like the average level below 180 Hz is 91 or 92 dB, and above 180 Hz is around 95 dB, unless that is just a strange little plateau at 200 Hz. Just wondering.


----------



## AustinJerry

I think it is just an anomaly in the way that particular measurement was taken. It shows the sub response only (i.e. the mains were turned off), and the AVR crossover between the mains and subs was set unusually high. With an 80Hz crossover in place, you would see a normal roll-off above 80Hz where the mains would be taking over.


----------



## paultimm

After all the gains are set, using xt32, then if one wants a little more bass, is it better to use the gain on AVR or use the gain on the subs?


----------



## Thomasdk1405

Hi again !

So now I did it  - as you told in the guide - but not 100 % exact - did not change mic hight - only at ear level.
1. PLPC 
2. 3 inches forward 
3. 3 inches left 
4. 3 inches right 
5. 6 inches left 
6. 6 inches left + 3 inches forward 
7. 6 inches right 
8. 6 inches right + 3 inches forward
and now - I have a sound I have never heard before on my HT gear. Subtle details from all speakers - breathing from actors I never heard before - surround effects that makes me turn my head as if someone was standing right behind me - but it's only effects in the movie.
Bass is not as violent as before - but it's there - red dragon crash in httyd made the room shake.
Music is also whole new chapter for me - sounds sooo good now. 
And here I had my onkyo 5007 for so many years - always did as manual told me - and I could have had this sound from the start ! Wonder why they stick to this - looked at denon, marantz and others with audyssey - all say the same way to meassure.

Anyway - huge thanks - cannot imagine how much time you must have spent making this guide - but it was worth it.
Now I need to rewatch all my movies 

/Thomas


----------



## AudiocRaver

Thomas:

I am tickled pink! A response like yours makes it all worth while.

Happy listening,

Wayne


----------



## AudiocRaver

paultimm said:


> After all the gains are set, using xt32, then if one wants a little more bass, is it better to use the gain on AVR or use the gain on the subs?


You will have much better control using the Subwoofer Level Calibration in your AVR. Changing it will not disrupt anything else about your setup.


----------



## davimill

Excellent article on Audyssey set up! I want to print out a hard copy, but don't see how to do that easily (is there a PDF available that I can download?). Also, I see that there are warnings that say "Do not click on this button!" in most sections of the document. The titles sound interesting. How can I see the "forbidden" material without causing some undefined problem?


----------



## AudiocRaver

davimill said:


> Excellent article on Audyssey set up! I want to print out a hard copy, but don't see how to do that easily (is there a PDF available that I can download?). Also, I see that there are warnings that say "Do not click on this button!" in most sections of the document. The titles sound interesting. How can I see the "forbidden" material without causing some undefined problem?


Sorry, the "do not click" warnings were my weak attempt at humor. No harm will ensue.

The articles were structured with deeper technical detail in the hidden panels to make the general information more readable. Just click the buttons for the detail if you want it.:bigsmile:

Thanks for the feedback!


----------



## davimill

Again: I want to print out a hard copy, but don't see how to do that easily. Is there a PDF available that I can download?. I suppose I could copy, paste, and edit each page, but if there is a way to download the entire document at once, I'd rather do that.

Thanks


----------



## JimShaw

Great, great article.

I have been using Audyssey XT32 for years

2, PLP, 3 spots are 2 feet from each other on the L & R of 1
4, 5, 6 spots all in front 2 feet of 2, 1, 3
7 and 8 are in between 2,1,3 and 4,5,6
Just like Chris from Audyssey says.

Today, I thought that I would give your layout a try










I could not believe it. After I ran audio from Prometheus, War of the World, I was very surprised. It did sound better.

How can that be? I have always measured as Audyssey recommended.

Strange that Audyssey would not have suggested your settings


m


----------



## AudiocRaver

davimill: Oops, saw your printing question and neglected to answer. I am on the road, give me a couple of days and I will see what I can come up with, possibly an all-in-one-file version, although some links will be broken.


----------



## AudiocRaver

JimShaw: I believe Audyssey chose to emphasize the simplest approach likely to satisfy the most Home Theater users, leaving other options for advanced / Pro Kit users. We chose to include details that could enhance Image Clarity and Soundstage for those wanting to try it.

Some have suggested it creates a result overly sensitive to listener head position. This will depend on speakers, room, furniture, & personal preference, but at least now you have the option to try it. Glad you like the result.


----------



## AustinJerry

AudiocRaver said:


> davimill: Oops, saw your printing question and neglected to answer. I am on the road, give me a couple of days and I will see what I can come up with, possibly an all-in-one-file version, although some links will be broken.


Wayne, let me help you out.

To print the Guide (at least using Internet Explorer, not sure about other browsers), simply click on the Thread Tools button and select View Printable Version. Then scroll down to the several spots where Wayne has placed the "Do not open..." warnings and click the Show button. After showing all the hidden content, click on the Printer icon in the IE Toolbar to print the entire Guide.


----------



## JimShaw

AudiocRaver said:


> JimShaw:* I believe Audyssey chose to emphasize the simplest approach likely to satisfy the most Home Theater users,* leaving other options for advanced / Pro Kit users. We chose to include details that could enhance Image Clarity and Soundstage for those wanting to try it.
> 
> *Some have suggested it creates a result overly sensitive to listener head position*. This will depend on speakers, room, furniture, & personal preference, but at least now you have the option to try it. Glad you like the result.


That is very understandable and possibly so. Better to set up an arrangement that would be simple to measure and would appeal to most of the Audyssey users.

*"Some have suggested it creates a result overly sensitive to listener head position."* 
This I don't understand. The head is were the ears are. Are they saying the sound should surround the body vs aiming directly at one's head?


----------



## davimill

As a new user, I'm not very familiar with some of the characteristics of the Forum and, for a while, I couldn't figure out how to print out texts. However, I finally found the "Printable Version" option under the "Thread Tools" menu and was successful in downloading the document. Whew! It was 40 pages! It would have been a real chore to copy and paste all those pages, so I was really happy to get it as a single download. I put it in a binder that is now on the shelf in my Theater Room with other manuals.

Thanks for providing this useful document to forum readers!


----------



## AustinJerry

JimShaw said:


> That is very understandable and possibly so. Better to set up an arrangement that would be simple to measure and would appeal to most of the Audyssey users.
> 
> *"Some have suggested it creates a result overly sensitive to listener head position."*
> This I don't understand. The head is were the ears are. Are they saying the sound should surround the body vs aiming directly at one's head?


Jim, I am the one who reported what I described as a "narrow sound stage" for the lack of a better term to describe what I was hearing. Keep in mind that the objective of room correction is to compensate for variations caused by the speaker interactions with the room. Audyssey claims to sample these variations at different spots in the room by moving the mic around during the calibration process. The objective is to provide the smoothest response across a number of listening positions, which can vary from room to room.

When I first tried Wayne's recommended mic placement pattern, which is a very tight pattern with only 3" between measurement spots, I found that by moving my head only a couple of inches to the left or right produced an audible shift in the sound stage. It was most noticeable when listening to two-channel music sources in stereo. Anyone who has listened to a well-tuned stereo system knows that when you are seated in the "sweet spot", the imaging can be magical. However, when you move out of the sweet spot, the magical imaging can collapse. There are a number of factors that contribute to how small the sweet spot is. When I commented that the tight mic spacing created a narrow sweet spot, I was simply comparing my impressions with earlier calibrations that did not exhibit the same effect. Whether you or anyone else observes something similar would depend on a number of variables.

Since my original report, I have run a new calibration, this time with a 6" spacing, and the results are more pleasing. I wish I could say that mic placements don't make a difference in calibration results, but my experience shows that they do. And, unfortunately, there is no one mic placement strategy that will provide the best results for everyone. One must experiment and have a lot of patience.


----------



## asere

I wonder if I'll notice a difference from multeq to xt.


----------



## flteng

Thanks for the guide, I tried it and have been very happy with the results with my Denon AVR2809. I have an untreated family room full of hard surfaces where I have tried it and have a much better result with better frequency response and clarity. I think I will rerun YPAO on my other system and try a similar microphone placement. It will be interesting to hear the result. Thanks again!


----------



## Mike0206

AustinJerry said:


> Jim, I am the one who reported what I described as a "narrow sound stage" for the lack of a better term to describe what I was hearing. Keep in mind that the objective of room correction is to compensate for variations caused by the speaker interactions with the room. Audyssey claims to sample these variations at different spots in the room by moving the mic around during the calibration process. The objective is to provide the smoothest response across a number of listening positions, which can vary from room to room.
> 
> When I first tried Wayne's recommended mic placement pattern, which is a very tight pattern with only 3" between measurement spots, I found that by moving my head only a couple of inches to the left or right produced an audible shift in the sound stage. It was most noticeable when listening to two-channel music sources in stereo. Anyone who has listened to a well-tuned stereo system knows that when you are seated in the "sweet spot", the imaging can be magical. However, when you move out of the sweet spot, the magical imaging can collapse. There are a number of factors that contribute to how small the sweet spot is. When I commented that the tight mic spacing created a narrow sweet spot, I was simply comparing my impressions with earlier calibrations that did not exhibit the same effect. Whether you or anyone else observes something similar would depend on a number of variables.
> 
> Since my original report, I have run a new calibration, this time with a 6" spacing, and the results are more pleasing. I wish I could say that mic placements don't make a difference in calibration results, but my experience shows that they do. And, unfortunately, there is no one mic placement strategy that will provide the best results for everyone. One must experiment and have a lot of patience.


I agree completely with your statement. I continue to run audyssey with different mic positions a few times a week still. I do it also because I'm always moving something around. I got to stop doing that!! I have tried both audyssey a recommended mic patterns and Wayne's. I prefer audyssey's a bit more but not by much. I have played around with my own spacing and I have found because of the width of my room at 21ft, 1 foot spacing between mic positions seems to be the best. One thing I did take away from Wayne's pattern is I do elevate the mic at two positions and they are to the left and right of PLP and slightly behind.


----------



## AustinJerry

asere said:


> I wonder if I'll notice a difference from multeq to xt.


I don't get it. If you are the same Asere who posts frequently on AVS, you asked this question last May and received a number of replies. Other than being completely OT, what is the purpose of asking this question again in this thread? Isn't the answer obvious to you by now?


----------



## AudiocRaver

AustinJerry said:


> Wayne, let me help you out.
> 
> To print the Guide (at least using Internet Explorer, not sure about other browsers), simply click on the Thread Tools button and select View Printable Version. Then scroll down to the several spots where Wayne has placed the "Do not open..." warnings and click the Show button. After showing all the hidden content, click on the Printer icon in the IE Toolbar to print the entire Guide.
> 
> View attachment 43710


I knew that!

Actually, I didn't.

Thanks, Jerry!


----------



## AudiocRaver

davimill said:


> As a new user, I'm not very familiar with some of the characteristics of the Forum and, for a while, I couldn't figure out how to print out texts. However, I finally found the "Printable Version" option under the "Thread Tools" menu and was successful in downloading the document. Whew! It was 40 pages! It would have been a real chore to copy and paste all those pages, so I was really happy to get it as a single download. I put it in a binder that is now on the shelf in my Theater Room with other manuals.
> 
> Thanks for providing this useful document to forum readers!


You are welcome.


----------



## AudiocRaver

JimShaw said:


> *"Some have suggested it creates a result overly sensitive to listener head position."*
> This I don't understand. The head is were the ears are. Are they saying the sound should surround the body vs aiming directly at one's head?


As AustinJerry has already responded, soundstage and imaging preferences are very personal and the results achieved vary with speakers, room acoustics, furniture choices, and the Audyssey MultEQ tuning process can be a factor, too, if you so desire. Some prefer a tightly-defined sound, even if it means the sound will shift if the head moves, some prefer a sound that allows more LP flexibility. A tighter or more spread out mic pattern allows one to choose the degree of focus in the sound field. It is simply an available option.



AustinJerry said:


> ...there is no one mic placement strategy that will provide the best results for everyone. One must experiment and have a lot of patience.


I fully agree with Jerry. The guides may suffice for some listeners, but as ears and tastes develop, many will find they are only starting points for their own experimentation.


----------



## AudiocRaver

asere said:


> I wonder if I'll notice a difference from multeq to xt.


MultEQ is the technology. XT is an implementation version. I am afraid the question does not make sense.


----------



## AudiocRaver

flteng said:


> Thanks for the guide, I tried it and have been very happy with the results with my Denon AVR2809. I have an untreated family room full of hard surfaces where I have tried it and have a much better result with better frequency response and clarity. I think I will rerun YPAO on my other system and try a similar microphone placement. It will be interesting to hear the result. Thanks again!


You are welcome.


----------



## sdurani

AudiocRaver said:


> MultEQ is the technology. XT is an implementation version. I am afraid the question does not make sense.


MultEQ is also the name of one of the implementation versions: 

http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/multeq/flavors

Seems asere was wondering whether the difference between MultEQ and MultEQ XT would be audible to him.


----------



## AudiocRaver

sdurani said:


> MultEQ is also the name of one of the implementation versions:
> 
> http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/multeq/flavors
> 
> Seems asere was wondering whether the difference between MultEQ and MultEQ XT would be audible to him.


Beg pardon, I forgot for a moment they had done that with the naming.


----------



## ALMFamily

sdurani said:


> MultEQ is also the name of one of the implementation versions:
> 
> http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/multeq/flavors
> 
> Seems asere was wondering whether the difference between MultEQ and MultEQ XT would be audible to him.


I can tell you beyond a doubt that the difference between EQ and EQ XT was audible to me - especially in the low end.


----------



## AudiocRaver

asere said:


> I wonder if I'll notice a difference from multeq to xt.


Beg pardon for the mental lapse in my earlier response, and for being so slow.

Whether or not there is an audible difference between the results of correction by MultEQ vs. MultEQ XT will depend on the amount of correction applied and in what frequency ranges it is applied. If a lot of correction is applied, the difference will probably be audible, and possibly quite obvious.


----------



## asere

AudiocRaver said:


> Beg pardon for the mental lapse in my earlier response, and for being so slow.
> 
> Whether or not there is an audible difference between the results of correction by MultEQ vs. MultEQ XT will depend on the amount of correction applied and in what frequency ranges it is applied. If a lot of correction is applied, the difference will probably be audible, and possibly quite obvious.


No problem! Thank you


----------



## AudiocRaver

What areas of the Guide need updating or correction or clarification? Any suggestions or requests?


----------



## AustinJerry

Nothing I can think of, Wayne.


----------



## jmoussa

hi guys. just wondering , if i have two mains and two subs, would that be classified as near field listening. The reason why i ask is because i want to calibrate the mains using multieq xt. Im on a bed and am a foot and a half from the rear wall. Just curious as to which graph to follow in the audussey setup guide. thanks.


----------



## theJman

jmoussa said:


> hi guys. just wondering , if i have two mains and two subs, would that be classified as near field listening. The reason why i ask is because i want to calibrate the mains using multieq xt. Im on a bed and am a foot and a half from the rear wall. Just curious as to which graph to follow in the audussey setup guide. thanks.


'nearfield' is a reference to your physical proximity to the speakers, not how many of them you have. Generally speaking, if you're within about a meter then you can consider that nearfield.


----------



## jmoussa

I understand. Thankyou very much. I'm still learning. Have a great day


----------



## jmoussa

So then I should just follow the basic 8 point mic set up in the guide since I'm 10 feet away?


----------



## theJman

I think that would be a good place to start.


----------



## jmoussa

Thanks jman


----------



## asere

Earlier today I got the change to run Audyssey but only 3 out of the 8 positions because the kids showed up. Just awhile ago I tried it again but when it got to position 4 it would not continue and said it's because of ambient noise.
The problem is there is no ambient noise. 
I turned AC off and removed wall clock etc and it keeps mentioning ambient noise.
I have the Onkyo 805 model. 
Has this happened to anyone before?


----------



## jmoussa

No asere. That's never happened to me before. Just keep trying and let us know what happened


----------



## JimShaw

asere said:


> Earlier today I got the change to run Audyssey but only 3 out of the 8 positions because the kids showed up. Just awhile ago I tried it again but when it got to position 4 it would not continue and said it's because of ambient noise.
> The problem is there is no ambient noise.
> I turned AC off and removed wall clock etc and it keeps mentioning ambient noise.
> I have the Onkyo 805 model.
> Has this happened to anyone before?


To me, the best thing you can do, when you have an Audyssey question, is to go on to Audyssey's web site and ask them. They have always gotten back to me and I have asked them many questions. They are great.

https://audyssey.zendesk.com/home


----------



## AustinJerry

asere said:


> Earlier today I got the change to run Audyssey but only 3 out of the 8 positions because the kids showed up. Just awhile ago I tried it again but when it got to position 4 it would not continue and said it's because of ambient noise.
> The problem is there is no ambient noise.
> I turned AC off and removed wall clock etc and it keeps mentioning ambient noise.
> I have the Onkyo 805 model.
> Has this happened to anyone before?


If you don't have any audible noise interfering with the calibration, then you could be having electrical noise in either the mic, the mic wiring, or the connection to the front of the AVR. The first thing I would try when the error message appears is to unplug and reinsert the mic connection, and make sure it is fully seated in the jack. If that doesn't clear the error, the next thing I would look at would be a defective mic. If you have a friend with an AVR that uses the same mic, this would be easy to test out. If not, a new mic is relatively inexpensive.


----------



## asere

AustinJerry said:


> If you don't have any audible noise interfering with the calibration, then you could be having electrical noise in either the mic, the mic wiring, or the connection to the front of the AVR. The first thing I would try when the error message appears is to unplug and reinsert the mic connection, and make sure it is fully seated in the jack. If that doesn't clear the error, the next thing I would look at would be a defective mic. If you have a friend with an AVR that uses the same mic, this would be easy to test out. If not, a new mic is relatively inexpensive.


Thank you I will try it again this week. I hope it's just the room.


----------



## AudiocRaver

asere said:


> Earlier today I got the change to run Audyssey but only 3 out of the 8 positions because the kids showed up. Just awhile ago I tried it again but when it got to position 4 it would not continue and said it's because of ambient noise.
> The problem is there is no ambient noise.
> I turned AC off and removed wall clock etc and it keeps mentioning ambient noise.
> I have the Onkyo 805 model.
> Has this happened to anyone before?


Interesting that it seemed to be going OK until you got to the 4th mic position. Has it done this more than once? Is the mic or its cable near any other equipment when moved to the 4th position?


----------



## asere

AudiocRaver said:


> Interesting that it seemed to be going OK until you got to the 4th mic position. Has it done this more than once? Is the mic or its cable near any other equipment when moved to the 4th position?


Yes it's done it more than once. Now that you mentioned it the mic is near the DirecTV box on the 4th position. The box is not loud but you can hear the fan on it. I will unplug the box and see.


----------



## Dwight Angus

JimShaw said:


> Great, great article.
> 
> I have been using Audyssey XT32 for years
> 
> 2, PLP, 3 spots are 2 feet from each other on the L & R of 1
> 4, 5, 6 spots all in front 2 feet of 2, 1, 3
> 7 and 8 are in between 2,1,3 and 4,5,6
> Just like Chris from Audyssey says.
> 
> Today, I thought that I would give your layout a try
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could not believe it. After I ran audio from Prometheus, War of the World, I was very surprised. It did sound better.
> 
> How can that be? I have always measured as Audyssey recommended.
> 
> Strange that Audyssey would not have suggested your settings
> 
> 
> m


I also have used XT32 for several years always following the suggested mic positions but I tried your suggested #8 position & I could not believe the improvements in both frequency response and Imaging. Many thanks Wayne its much appreciated.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Dwight Angus said:


> I also have used XT32 for several years always following the suggested mic positions but I tried your suggested #8 position & I could not believe the improvements in both frequency response and Imaging. Many thanks Wayne its much appreciated.


You are welcome. Glad you are happy with the results.

As said previously, the recommendations made by Audyssey have served many listeners well for a long time. Our guide was partly an attempt to provide an alternative way of going about it for those who are interested in a more 2-channel-friendly outcome.


----------



## asere

asere said:


> Yes it's done it more than once. Now that you mentioned it the mic is near the DirecTV box on the 4th position. The box is not loud but you can hear the fan on it. I will unplug the box and see.


I unplugged the DirecTV box and Audyssey went through all the 8 positions without problems.
It did set my center to 100hz, left and right main to 150hz.
I know there is nothing I can do about that because the speakers are already set permanently in ceiling but for THX Cinena mode should I bring them down to 80 hz for THX standards?
The issue is you can go up on crossovers with Audyssey but never go below what it set it to.


----------



## tonyvdb

no, leave them at 100Hz or even 120. I highly doubt they go lower than that so changing it to 80 would only put frequencies in those speakers that will push them to hard.


----------



## asere

tonyvdb said:


> no, leave them at 100Hz or even 120. I highly doubt they go lower than that so changing it to 80 would only put frequencies in those speakers that will push them to hard.


Thank you! On a good note I'm unable to localize the sub considering the high crossovers.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Glad you got it working.:T


----------



## asere

AudiocRaver said:


> Glad you got it working.:T


Thank you!


----------



## Dwight Angus

AudiocRaver said:


> You are welcome. Glad you are happy with the results.
> 
> As said previously, the recommendations made by Audyssey have served many listeners well for a long time. Our guide was partly an attempt to provide an alternative way of going about it for those who are interested in a more 2-channel-friendly outcome.


Are you suggesting the 101 mic diagram is for 2 channel environments as i used it for xt32 7.2 setup?


----------



## AudiocRaver

Dwight Angus said:


> Are you suggesting the 101 mic diagram is for 2 channel environments as i used it for xt32 7.2 setup?


Yes, it works great for 2-channel if the room/speakers call for EQ.


----------



## Dwight Angus

Just to clarify I should not use 101 for multi channel rooms? If not what is the diagram I should follow?


----------



## mvision7m

As already has been said, this is a fantastic thread and there simply cannot be enough thanks to AUDIOcRAVER and others who have contributed. 

All of the mic diagrams, info and graphs are very valuable for us novices and newbies. 

If possible, and if I may be so bold to suggest it, this thread might also benefit from adding Audyssey's mic diagrams as a reference and to also provide newcomers and novices one stop shopping when googling "best Audyssey mic positions" trying to find the best positions for 2.0, 2.1, 5.1 and 7.1 set ups. 

Upon finding this thread I thought the 101 diagram's mic position suggestion was for the best possible room correction (EQ) for surround sound. I didn't realize it was more focused on two channel sound. Only upon further reading did I see that fact posted. 

Anyway, again, great thread and thanks again to everyone who contributed anything valuable to it especially AUDIOcRAVER.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Dwight Angus said:


> Just to clarify I should not use 101 for multi channel rooms? If not what is the diagram I should follow?





mvision7m said:


> As already has been said, this is a fantastic thread and there simply cannot be enough thanks to AUDIOcRAVER and others who have contributed.
> 
> All of the mic diagrams, info and graphs are very valuable for us novices and newbies.
> 
> If possible, and if I may be so bold to suggest it, this thread might also benefit from adding Audyssey's mic diagrams as a reference and to also provide newcomers and novices one stop shopping when googling "best Audyssey mic positions" trying to find the best positions for 2.0, 2.1, 5.1 and 7.1 set ups.
> 
> Upon finding this thread I thought the 101 diagram's mic position suggestion was for the best possible room correction (EQ) for surround sound. I didn't realize it was more focused on two channel sound. Only upon further reading did I see that fact posted.
> 
> Anyway, again, great thread and thanks again to everyone who contributed anything valuable to it especially AUDIOcRAVER.


Your point about including Audyssey's standard mic patterns as a reference is a good one. I hope to be doing an update after the first of the year. I will consider including something like that.

As to the usability of the 101 pattern for multi-channel, how well that will work depends on many factors. Where there is more variation between different seat positions, using the 101 pattern tends to give good results right at the listening position and results that are not as good farther away. Where there is less variation, the 101 pattern works quite well for all listening positions. One thing to remember, where there is a lot of variation between listening positions, the standard Audyssey mike patterns tend to give a result which is kind of mediocre all across the area. It makes everyone equal, but equally mediocre. So the question for that situation is, do you want the primary listening position to sound good and not worry about the rest, or do you want all positions to sound equally mediocre?

I am NOT being sarcastic, it truly is a choice for you to make as the home theater host.


----------



## mvision7m

AudiocRaver said:


> Your point about including Audyssey's standard mic patterns as a reference is a good one. I hope to be doing an update after the first of the year. I will consider including something like that. As to the usability of the 101 pattern for multi-channel, how well that will work depends on many factors. Where there is more variation between different seat positions, using the 101 pattern tends to give good results right at the listening position and results that are not as good farther away. Where there is less variation, the 101 pattern works quite well for all listening positions. One thing to remember, where there is a lot of variation between listening positions, the standard Audyssey mike patterns tend to give a result which is kind of mediocre all across the area. It makes everyone equal, but equally mediocre. So the question for that situation is, do you want the primary listening position to sound good and not worry about the rest, or do you want all positions to sound equally mediocre? I am NOT being sarcastic, it truly is a choice for you to make as the home theater host.


Looking forward to the update if and when you have the time to do it. 

Excellent points regarding more distant multi point mediocre sounding EQing vs "PLP" focused EQing. 

As always everyone's differing listening environments will yield different results even with identical mic set up. I always understand that to be a given when discussing any audio equipment. 

I didn't read any sarcasm into your post. I know it's often difficult to make a point or valid argument in text based form because tone is often left to interpretation which in too many cases, (in other, less civilized forums) leads to petty arguments and silly name calling. Thankfully this forum tends to be filled with good, thoughtful, intelligent, generally helpful, mostly knowledgable or at least experienced (usually one in the same) but most importantly respectful people which I truly appreciate.


----------



## kingnoob

How do u set up Xt32 when room is only intended for 1-3 listeners?
which spots do you set the mic? for 8 point set up


----------



## mvision7m

Hey guys. Finally had a chance to re-run Audyssey since I first got my Marantz A/V8801 and since finding this great thread. 

After doing some online research which led me to some important Audyssey facts and using the useful and helpful info in this thread, my system is sounding great. 

I have a small to average size living room where my H.T. system is set up. 

Many here know this but I'll state it for novices and newbies. One thing I was reminded about (when discussing crossover/bass management) and that may be mentioned somewhere in this thread is that LFE and bass is NOT the same thing. LFE is a separate and independent Low Frequency Effects track that's outside of the normal bass content in movies, music and other media. Given that fact, realize that your individual speaker crossovers and your LFE LPF crossover point are different things. The FAQ section of Audyssey's website states that the LFE LPF setting should always be set at 120Hz. I didn't know what the LFE LPF setting did when I saw it in the setup menu and was a little confused since I had already individually set the crossovers from my speakers to my sub. It was set by default at 80Hz in my Marantz but I've since changed it to 120Hz before re-running Audyssey. 

I used the 101 diagram mic positions with minor adjustments to positions 1-4 due to my particular set up and I'm very happy with the sound. Coherent, lively and effective. I'm sure a real pro or someone with much more Audyssey experience could squeeze a little more performance out of my system but I'm happy. 

Watched portions of two different concert blu rays and they both sounded fantastic. Individual instruments were easy to discern and the music sounded full and fun. 

I then watched the opening battle scene from Master and Commander on blu ray at reference level (0 db) and HOLEEEEEEE!! It sounded (how it was meant to sound) like splintered wood and debris was flying around my living room and the booms from the canons were tight, punchy and most importantly completely gratifying in the most entertaining HD sense. 

I hope everyone else that comes here looking for help with Audyssey and mic positions achieves similarly great results by whatever method (Audyssey's or the ones outlined here). 

Happy holidays to everyone.


----------



## harlington

Hi guys, first post here. I can't wait to get home to try the close mic pattern from this guide as I have been using the Auddessey one with my Denon X4000. One question: if I have 4 seat HT recliners and usually watching a movie with my seat reclined for comfort zone, does that mean my PLP for the first mic postion is where my head is when the seat is reclined (I assume but thought I would ask here). if so, does that mean it will not sound as good when I watch a movie with my seat upright which is about at least a two feet swing from reclined? What do you suggest as far as the first mic positioning with recliners?
Again a big THANKS to Audiocrave for taking lots of time experimenting and writing up such a wonderful guide. :hissyfit:


----------



## harlington

AustinJerry said:


> I have 4 subs as well, and an AVR with MultEQ XT32, just like you. You have two things to deal with, the sub levels, and the sub delay (distance) settings.
> 
> First, the level settings. Since the subs will be placed in different spots in the room, and since each sub's interaction with the room depends on where it is placed, you should use a procedure called gain-matching to set each sub's level. I assume that you have, at a minimum, a decent sound pressure meter. If you have a measurement system like REW, that is even better. Here is a basic gain-matching procedure using an SPL:
> 
> - Make sure any internal crossovers on the subs are disabled before starting, and that each sub's phase control is set to zero.
> - Turn off all subs except the first one.
> - On your AVR, generate the sub level test tone for the channel the first sub is connected to.
> - Turn on the SPL, set it to Slow, C-Weighting, *get close to the first sub, and point the SPL at the sub's dust cone, 1-2 inches away. Adjust the sub's gain control until it reads 90dB (I have found this a good value as a starting point).
> - Repeat the process for the other three subs, holding the SPL close, and adjusting to the same 90dB level.*
> 
> This procedure ensures that each sub is outputting the same sound level, independent of the room's effect.
> 
> Now, run the Audyssey calibration, but do not change the sub gains regardless of what the Audyssey sub level-setting screen says. Finish your calibration following Wayne's excellent instructions, and when finished check the resulting sub channel trim settings in the AVR. If the trim settings are any value other than the "max" values (by max, I mean -12 or +12 on a Denon AVR), then you are OK. If the trims are maxed, then you need to go back to the gain-matching procedure and use a different setting from the 90dB level (higher or lower, depending on the Audyssey results).
> 
> The distance settings may or may not be easier for you, depending on your sub placement options. Since you only have two sub channels and two distance settings, the ideal configuration would be to have two pairs of subs in which the two subs within a pair are equidistant from the MLP. This results in delay settings that are correct for all four subs. For example, I have two subs in the front of the room at the 1/4 and 3/4 width spots, equidistant from the MLP. I have two subs on the back wall, also placed such that they are equidistant from the MLP.
> 
> You may find this approach yields good results. However, tuning in four subs is never a simple process, and your results may vary. Regardless, unless you have a measurement system like REW, the job is going to be especially difficult.


Make it my second post here. In addition to what mentioned, don't you need to place all of your subs at the *same exact location *one by one with spl meter at the exact distance to each sub to ensure a proper gain match due to room acoustic? after obtaining this 90dbs for each sub at this same location (in the middle of the room may be), then move them back to their final positions.
One question on gain match: What if the final level set by XT32 is sub 1=-1db and sub 2=-9db (due to it being nearfield as compare to sub 1 sitting way upfront)? Does this mean even though both subs are gain matched originally, sub 1 will have to work a lot harder as it is set 8db louder than sub2 to deliver the same spl to PLP which is kind of defeating the gain match? What if I want to run both sub 6dbs hotter? Raise sub 1 to 5db and sub 2 to -3db? If so, I am actually now pushing sub1 even more. I am trying to understand the logic here. Thanks.


----------



## harlington

Make it my three straight posts after reading the guide and discussion here. My room falls in to the picture 101B category with my seat being off room center to the left of position 1

From the guide *'101, 101B, 102 - Best Image Clarity and good frequency response coverage. All dimensions are relative to PLP Center (PLPC): 
1-PLP center 
2-3 inches forward 
3-3 inches up 
4-3 up & 3 forward 
5-3 inches left 
6-3 inches right 
7-plus points for 2 other LPs (except 6-point MultEQ) 
For 101B, first four points are relative to the high seat back "wings," the rest are relative to the seat back'*

Per #7: plus points for 2 other LPs. In my case, it will be 4 feet away from position 1 PLP center. Is that okay? 
Audiocrave, do you happen to have any graph comparing placing mic at the center point to front LR speakers versus placing it at my seat which is off center? I know you recommend center point to front LR which means my first mic will be on my right armrest between seats.
Anyone here with similar seat positioning (off center to front LR) plays with placing mic at the center point to front LR speakers versus placing it at your seat which is off center? what do you find? 
I am sure I will try both to hear it for myself but want to hear your thought on this. Thanks.


----------



## harlington

.


----------



## harlington

,


----------



## harlington

sdurani said:


> I'll be the heretic and give an alternate view.
> 
> I haven't found much content, and certainly nothing critical, between 80Hz and 120Hz in the LFE channel. Maybe some re-recording engineers are rolling off above 80Hz because it fits with the THX spec, maybe because commercial theatre speakers go down to 40-50Hz; who knows.
> 
> With that in mind, I set the low pass filter of the LFE channel where I cross over to my main speakers (80Hz). The main reason for this is because I want a single blend point from subs to speakers. So if I get the blend just right at 80Hz, then want all the content from my subwoofers rolling off at that point, not some of it rolling off at 80Hz and some of it rolling off at 120Hz. Besides, at that high a frequency, most subwoofers I've heard start to become localizable.


Would it be better to keep LFE @ 120Hz and raise the crossover to 120Hz for LCR then? I understand it is more localize with >80hz but sub(s) perform better for bass as compare to main plus it provides the receiver more head room driving the speakers and one does not have to miss any LFE content. Would this help folks running dual subs next to his/her main LR? Thought on this?


----------



## mvision7m

harlington said:


> Would it be better to keep LFE @ 120Hz and raise the crossover to 120Hz for LCR then? I understand it is more localize with >80hz but sub(s) perform better for bass as compare to main plus it provides the receiver more head room driving the speakers and one does not have to miss any LFE content. Would this help folks running dual subs next to his/her main LR? Thought on this?


Others may know better than I as to which setting "may" be better. I posted the 120Hz setting earlier in this thread only because that's what I read in the FAQ section of Audyssey's website. I figure they know better than me so that's how I have mine set and I haven't heard anything negative since setting it that way although I can't say I've heard anything necessarily positive solely in regards to that setting.


----------



## mvision7m

I have a question for anyone who actually knows. 

When running Audyssey, does it matter which input you're currently set to? 

In other words, do I have to run Audyssey for each input or is it one and done? 

Thanks and happy holidays.


----------



## tonyvdb

Does not matter what input your on. Just run it and be done :T


----------



## JimShaw

tonyvdb said:


> Does not matter what input your on. Just run it and be done :T


Agreed!!!


----------



## esandhu

I an new to Audyssey as I have just replaced my older Pioneer receiver with a Marantz 6007. I ran the setup test procedure last night several times taking measurements from 3-6 locations in our room each time. So far I have been unhappy with the results and believe I must be missing something. I was up late last night reading this forum and others to troubleshoot the problem, but wanted to know if anyone had some immediate thoughts. The sound from the front three channels seems way off. The left and right channel levels seem overly loud relative to the center channel. High frequencies also seem to have dropped off dramatically from the Pioneer I replaced. We watched Ironman with the Pioneer the night before I swapped in the Marantz so that soundtrack was fresh in my mind. It sounded AMAZING with the Pioneer and is completely flat with the Marantz with Audyssey. In fact, when I turn off Audyssey processing the sound actually improves. I have tried resetting the Marantz and returning to factory defaults and rerunning Audyssey setup with no success. I will try updating the firmware today and will also try another set of front speakers (although the system sounded great the night before with the Pioneer). This receiver should be nicer than anything I have ever had in my system, but so far I feel like going back to my old equipment. Any help is greatly appreciation.

Thanks and happy holidays!!


----------



## mvision7m

tonyvdb said:


> Does not matter what input your on. Just run it and be done :T


Awesome. Thanks. 

Just thought of another question if no one minds answering it also. 

If after running Audyssey I check speaker levels and distances and find the Audyssey settings for either or both of those settings to be off by using an SPL meter, should I adjust those settings or leave them to the values Audyssey sets? 

Audyssey of course isn't perfect and while it will usually get very close, sometimes it won't be perfectly correct in the distance and level settings. Do I trust what Audyssey's mic heard or make adjustments after completing Audyssey using an SPL meter? 

Thanks again for any knowledgable responses.


----------



## JimShaw

mvision7m said:


> Awesome. Thanks.
> 
> Just thought of another question if no one minds answering it also.
> 
> If after running Audyssey I check speaker levels and distances and find the Audyssey settings for either or both of those settings to be off by using an SPL meter, should I adjust those settings or leave them to the values Audyssey sets?
> 
> Audyssey of course isn't perfect and while it will usually get very close, sometimes it won't be perfectly correct in the distance and level settings. Do I trust what Audyssey's mic heard or make adjustments after completing Audyssey using an SPL meter?
> 
> Thanks again for any knowledgable responses.



I leave the distance settings alone because of the filtering Audyssey does. For volume, I raise the center channel up so it can be heard over the rest of the sounds. Volume is an individual preference


----------



## tonyvdb

Yup ^^
Leave the distance setting as is as it's not actual distance but how long the sound takes to travel to the listening position. 
The levels can be adjusted to your liking.


----------



## mvision7m

tonyvdb said:


> Yup ^^ Leave the distance setting as is as it's not actual distance but how long the sound takes to travel to the listening position. The levels can be adjusted to your liking.


I appreciate the quick replies guys. Thanks.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Pardon the slow response, several projects going on, in catchup mode, etc., and some of this has probably been answered...



mvision7m said:


> I used the 101 diagram mic positions with minor adjustments to positions 1-4 due to my particular set up and I'm very happy with the sound. Coherent, lively and effective. I'm sure a real pro or someone with much more Audyssey experience could squeeze a little more performance out of my system but I'm happy.
> 
> Watched portions of two different concert blu rays and they both sounded fantastic. Individual instruments were easy to discern and the music sounded full and fun.
> 
> I then watched the opening battle scene from Master and Commander on blu ray at reference level (0 db) and HOLEEEEEEE!! It sounded (how it was meant to sound) like splintered wood and debris was flying around my living room and the booms from the canons were tight, punchy and most importantly completely gratifying in the most entertaining HD sense.
> 
> I hope everyone else that comes here looking for help with Audyssey and mic positions achieves similarly great results by whatever method (Audyssey's or the ones outlined here).


Wonderful! Great movie sound really is delightful. Thanks for the feedback.



harlington said:


> Hi guys, first post here. I can't wait to get home to try the close mic pattern from this guide as I have been using the Auddessey one with my Denon X4000. One question: if I have 4 seat HT recliners and usually watching a movie with my seat reclined for comfort zone, does that mean my PLP for the first mic postion is where my head is when the seat is reclined (I assume but thought I would ask here). if so, does that mean it will not sound as good when I watch a movie with my seat upright which is about at least a two feet swing from reclined? What do you suggest as far as the first mic positioning with recliners?
> Again a big THANKS to Audiocrave for taking lots of time experimenting and writing up such a wonderful guide. :hissyfit:


Using the recliner-up mic positions while running Audyssey MultEQ setup will give a result that should work well for the recliner either up or down while listening. The result should be more friendly to surrounding LP's also. That is how I would do it.

Another tip, take a soft, fleecy blanket, fold in fourths, lay it over the back of the chair while Audyssey setup is being run and leave it while you use the chair. It will cut down reflections and improve imaging & soundstage even more.



harlington said:


> Make it my second post here. In addition to what mentioned, don't you need to place all of your subs at the *same exact location *one by one with spl meter at the exact distance to each sub to ensure a proper gain match due to room acoustic? after obtaining this 90dbs for each sub at this same location (in the middle of the room may be), then move them back to their final positions.
> 
> One question on gain match: What if the final level set by XT32 is sub 1=-1db and sub 2=-9db (due to it being nearfield as compare to sub 1 sitting way upfront)? Does this mean even though both subs are gain matched originally, sub 1 will have to work a lot harder as it is set 8db louder than sub2 to deliver the same spl to PLP which is kind of defeating the gain match? What if I want to run both sub 6dbs hotter? Raise sub 1 to 5db and sub 2 to -3db? If so, I am actually now pushing sub1 even more. I am trying to understand the logic here. Thanks.


Setting up subs is not my strongest area. Your logic looks sound through this process, setting sub volume control first, then AVR/Audyssey MultEQ gain to compensate for distance. Yes, the subs that are farther away have to work harder. Running sub level hotter can push the hottest one pretty hard.

*EDIT* Just caught myself not being thorough. Reading AustinJerry's post completely that you were referring to, it looks like your process is the same as his with a step added that is basically overkill. Theoretically your added step adds some refinement that could make that level matching a little more accurate. But the benefit is probably small enough to not be worth moving the subs around. I am going to defer to AustinJerry on this one, he is highly knowledgeable and experienced with subs and Audyssey both. I am sure his method is as thorough as it needs to be. *END OF EDIT*



harlington said:


> Per #7:...plus points for 2 other LPs. In my case, it will be 4 feet away from position 1 PLP center. Is that okay?


Yes if the variation at that point relative to the PLP is minimal. If the sound is very different, move it closer to the PLP.



> Audiocrave, do you happen to have any graph comparing placing mic at the center point to front LR speakers versus placing it at my seat which is off center? I know you recommend center point to front LR which means my first mic will be on my right armrest between seats.
> Anyone here with similar seat positioning (off center to front LR) plays with placing mic at the center point to front LR speakers versus placing it at your seat which is off center? what do you find?
> I am sure I will try both to hear it for myself but want to hear your thought on this. Thanks.


No comparison graph, only listening experience. With the even number of seats, either setup mic pattern position is a compromise. If you strongly prioritize sound at the PLP, and two-channel listening, try the setup mic pattern at the listener's head location. It might or might not give satisfactory results at that offset position. My honest thoughts? Re-do that row of seating to an odd number of seats with the PLP in the center. Seriously. You asked.:huh:

For cinema only, pattern 101B as shown will give good results.


----------



## AudiocRaver

harlington said:


> Would it be better to keep LFE @ 120Hz and raise the crossover to 120Hz for LCR then? I understand it is more localize with >80hz but sub(s) perform better for bass as compare to main plus it provides the receiver more head room driving the speakers and one does not have to miss any LFE content. Would this help folks running dual subs next to his/her main LR? Thought on this?





mvision7m said:


> Others may know better than I as to which setting "may" be better. I posted the 120Hz setting earlier in this thread only because that's what I read in the FAQ section of Audyssey's website. I figure they know better than me so that's how I have mine set and I haven't heard anything negative since setting it that way although I can't say I've heard anything necessarily positive solely in regards to that setting.


This is a matter of a) what you _can_ hear that is coming from the wrong direction vs. b) what you cannot hear that is probably not there. I am going to go with "b." Plus the potential benefits of "a" are probably not measurable or audible, whereas sounds coming from the wrong direction _are_ audible and _*distracting.*_

It appears to be true that the amount of LFE content between 80 Hz and 120 Hz is pretty small, or there would be a lot of complaints about bits of that content seeming to come from the wrong direction.

Using the 120 Hertz setting appears to be the most commonly accepted convention. Sdurani has posted an alternative view, which is certainly worth considering, too. In reality, where is probably almost zero audible difference between the two approaches.


----------



## AudiocRaver

kingnoob said:


> How do u set up Xt32 when room is only intended for 1-3 listeners?
> which spots do you set the mic? for 8 point set up


Oops, missed your post, beg pardon.

The number 101 pattern in our Guide is what I would suggest.


----------



## AudiocRaver

esandhu said:


> I an new to Audyssey as I have just replaced my older Pioneer receiver with a Marantz 6007. I ran the setup test procedure last night several times taking measurements from 3-6 locations in our room each time. So far I have been unhappy with the results and believe I must be missing something. I was up late last night reading this forum and others to troubleshoot the problem, but wanted to know if anyone had some immediate thoughts. The sound from the front three channels seems way off. The left and right channel levels seem overly loud relative to the center channel. High frequencies also seem to have dropped off dramatically from the Pioneer I replaced. We watched Ironman with the Pioneer the night before I swapped in the Marantz so that soundtrack was fresh in my mind. It sounded AMAZING with the Pioneer and is completely flat with the Marantz with Audyssey. In fact, when I turn off Audyssey processing the sound actually improves. I have tried resetting the Marantz and returning to factory defaults and rerunning Audyssey setup with no success. I will try updating the firmware today and will also try another set of front speakers (although the system sounded great the night before with the Pioneer). This receiver should be nicer than anything I have ever had in my system, but so far I feel like going back to my old equipment. Any help is greatly appreciation.
> 
> Thanks and happy holidays!!


It is a little difficult to tell exactly what you are hearing. Often when an AVR is heard with Audyssey MultEQ properly applied for the first time, the reaction is that it seems flat, lifeless, boring. A system with flatter response can seem that way if your previous system was hyped up in some fashion, either on purpose or by accident.

I am not suggesting any lack of expertise on your part. Just asking the question if it is possible that the settings or the Pioneer, or speaker position, or something else might have changed over time that had the Pioneer setup sounding different from what Audyssey would normally have sounded like with the Pioneer. If so, then switching to the Marantz and applying Odyssey might seem lifeless in contrast, where in reality it might be the more accurate presentation.

Not knowing more about the situation, that is the first possible explanation that comes to mind.



mvision7m said:


> Awesome. Thanks.
> 
> Just thought of another question if no one minds answering it also.
> 
> If after running Audyssey I check speaker levels and distances and find the Audyssey settings for either or both of those settings to be off by using an SPL meter, should I adjust those settings or leave them to the values Audyssey sets?
> 
> Audyssey of course isn't perfect and while it will usually get very close, sometimes it won't be perfectly correct in the distance and level settings. Do I trust what Audyssey's mic heard or make adjustments after completing Audyssey using an SPL meter?
> 
> Thanks again for any knowledgable responses.


Agree with the other responses. Speaker distance setting changes will totally mess up the EQ that Audyssey has accomplished. Level settings can be tailored pretty much at will.


----------



## harlington

Thanks so much Audioucraver. If I can just have three seats where MLP is death center of the LR, I would already did that. It is a compromise here as you mentioned. Any way, I tried your close mic positions at my seat and like what I hear so far just with one movie (haven't had time for more due to holiday)


----------



## AudiocRaver

Of course there are always fixed factors we have to deal with. It is a little surprising to see home theaters being planned from scratch where that is not taken into account, though, and there is an even number of front row seats where there could easily be an odd number with a centered PLP. 

I am glad the alternate mic pattern approach worked out for you.


----------



## harlington

The house we bought already had the theater. We have a family of four and the width of my room cannot accommodate 5 seats. The right seat is touching the right wall and we have about 2 feet from left wall to left seat which is our only entrance to our theater. We only have one row as we don't have enough room for a second row. Even with this compromise, I still enjoy the sound a lot. Again, what a great write up you have. Thanks a million.


----------



## AudiocRaver

You watch movies with your family and you have good sound at your PLP. You can't beat that.


----------



## bigdogaxis

AudiocRaver, I can't tell you how disappointed I am after using the 102 method for my 2 row, 6 seat theater. My MartinLogan 7.2 setup finally sounds like it should. While FR improved, the imaging astonished me. 

My disappointment is with my self. I've had the speakers for years and got the Denon 4311ci in 2011. Like a good boy, I followed the guides and advice of others as I wanted the best my system could offer. My goal has always been bigger, not louder, sound.

I've always been happy with my MultEQ results which improved substantially with the xt32 version. However, reducing the measurement footprint enhances spatial imaging without significantly affecting other LPs. The results I hear support your guide. Now I am motivated to see what this REW thing is all about.


----------



## AudiocRaver

bigdogaxis said:


> AudiocRaver, I can't tell you how disappointed I am after using the 102 method for my 2 row, 6 seat theater.


*GULP!*:yikes:



> My MartinLogan 7.2 setup finally sounds like it should. While FR improved, the imaging astonished me.


*WHEW!*:whew:



> My disappointment is with my self. I've had the speakers for years and got the Denon 4311ci in 2011. Like a good boy, I followed the guides and advice of others as I wanted the best my system could offer. My goal has always been bigger, not louder, sound.
> 
> I've always been happy with my MultEQ results which improved substantially with the xt32 version. However, reducing the measurement footprint enhances spatial imaging without significantly affecting other LPs. The results I hear support your guide. Now I am motivated to see what this REW thing is all about.


Heh, heh. Good one, you had me going for a minute there.

It always makes my day to hear that the Guide has helped someone reach a new level of sonic enjoyment.

Happy to be of service!


----------



## bigdogaxis

Well, you, sir, made my day. :yay: 

You are right to say most casual listeners don't care. I called the family to the theater room demanding, "Sit here and listen to this!" :sn: 

Of the three people polled, three said 'what was I supposed to hear?' Bummer, dude. :wits-end:


----------



## AudiocRaver

Some people appreciate good sound. The rest lead boring lives. Kidding, of course.

Even among serious home theater types there are many who have not heard good imaging, and among them some simply will not appreciate it. All the more reason to emphasize the best sound at the primary listening position. What matters in this case is that you found an approach that makes _you_ happier with _your_ seat in _your_ theater, and did not make the other seats sound significantly worse.

Cheers.:sn:


----------



## flteng

Thanks again for this guide! I have had great results with it on two separate systems. I tried it in my family room using a Denon AVR2809 and Dali bookshelves and was very pleased with the improvements. Yesterday I used the 101 pattern in my theatre system using YPAO on a Yamaha RX-V1900 with JBL speakers and found great improvements in balance and imaging. The steering of sound effects around the room in movies was the best I have heard at home. I used a slight modification where I used reclined and partially reclined seating for the positions 3 and 4. Now I have a taste for these improvements I am going to set myself up with REW and try and further optimise the components I have. Many Thanks, highly recommend giving this a try!


----------



## AudiocRaver

Super. Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## kbalagi

I am using a Marantz AVR with Multi EQ. The above information was quite useful. thanks & best regards,


----------



## jmoussa

Hello Wayne how are you?

Just a quick question.
With the audussey instructions you have written up, there two lots of set up mic positions. One lot where the positions are in one square and the second lot which are at the bottom are over different seating. I have multieq xt and am on a bed. Can you please advise which diagram would best work for me. thanks.


----------



## AustinJerry

Not Wayne, but I can share what I do with my bedroom system, which is a 5.1 system with a Denon 4311 (MultEQ XT32). I'm sure Wayne will have some interesting additional comments.

I start by sitting up in the bed, in the position I would normally be in when listening to music or watching a movie. I measure the height of my ears which will be used as the height of the Audyssey mic during measurements. I then choose the first mic position carefully--it should not be too close to the headboard or back wall, regardless of where my head is, to avoid reflections. I measure out 12" from the headboard and mark that as the 1st measurement position. Then I create a pattern of five additional measurement points, each spaced 12" from the first, one to the left, one to the right, and then three positions 12" forward from the first three positions. These represent the first six measurement positions. Finally, for the seventh and eighth positions, I re-measure at the first point, but raise the mic 3", and then 12" forward, again with the mic 3" higher.

Wayne may advocate a smaller distance than 12", which I am sure will produce good results as well. Raising the mic 3" for a couple of measurements is a technique I learned from Wayne which works very well, IMO. Give this technique a try and report back with the results--looking forward to hearing from you.


----------



## jmoussa

Thankyou so much austinjerry.

i will get back to you. Its so much easier when someone else has the same setup, so thankyou.

:wave:


----------



## AudiocRaver

jmoussa said:


> Hello Wayne how are you?
> 
> Just a quick question.
> With the audussey instructions you have written up, there two lots of set up mic positions. One lot where the positions are in one square and the second lot which are at the bottom are over different seating. I have multieq xt and am on a bed. Can you please advise which diagram would best work for me. thanks.





AustinJerry said:


> Not Wayne, but I can share what I do with my bedroom system, which is a 5.1 system with a Denon 4311 (MultEQ XT32). I'm sure Wayne will have some interesting additional comments.
> 
> I start by sitting up in the bed, in the position I would normally be in when listening to music or watching a movie. I measure the height of my ears which will be used as the height of the Audyssey mic during measurements. I then choose the first mic position carefully--it should not be too close to the headboard or back wall, regardless of where my head is, to avoid reflections. I measure out 12" from the headboard and mark that as the 1st measurement position. Then I create a pattern of five additional measurement points, each spaced 12" from the first, one to the left, one to the right, and then three positions 12" forward from the first three positions. These represent the first six measurement positions. Finally, for the seventh and eighth positions, I re-measure at the first point, but raise the mic 3", and then 12" forward, again with the mic 3" higher.
> 
> Wayne may advocate a smaller distance than 12", which I am sure will produce good results as well. Raising the mic 3" for a couple of measurements is a technique I learned from Wayne which works very well, IMO. Give this technique a try and report back with the results--looking forward to hearing from you.


There are not very many people who have more experience at applying Audyssey MultEQ than AustinJerry, you can not go wrong with his recommendations.

Starting at ear height, 12" away from the headboard, I would probably go with tighter spacing than 12", say 8" left and right, then 6" for each step forward, then up 3" from the starting point, then 6" forward from there.

The main difference between AustinJerry's much-appreciated suggestion and mine is that mine should give  more concise imaging and soundstage results (not a _huge_ difference, but probably noticeable), while AustinJerry's spacings will give you more flexibility in your listening position without disrupting the imaging and soundstage - purely a matter of personal preference.

Another alternative, from Section 7 or our FAQ and Setup Guide, would be pattern 101. Start at the same point as suggested above and change all spacings from 3" to 6", making mic positions number seven 12" left of position one and position number eight 12" right of position number one. The wider spacing is because your sitting position on a bed will not be as repeatable as on a chair. And if you want even more position flexibility, you can double all the spacings, more consistent with AustinJerry's approach.

Remember, this is not an exact science. All such suggestions are a starting point. A certain amount of experimentation may be necessary to get the best results.

Best of luck!


----------



## bigdogaxis

Until recently, I used various wide field patterns measuring at each seat, ultimately reducing the field to a 48" diameter. Then I tried AudiocRaver's 3" spacing algorithm for Audyssey mic setup for two weeks and now 6" spacing. 

I liked the 3" spacing results better than the wide field spacing. This inspired me to explore other spacing. I find 6" spacing provides exceptional imaging and frequency response. 

What I took from this guide is try different mic positions and spacing, then decide which is best for you.

Paul


----------



## JimShaw

bigdogaxis said:


> Until recently, I used various wide field patterns measuring at each seat, ultimately reducing the field to a 48" diameter. Then I tried AudiocRaver's 3" spacing algorithm for Audyssey mic setup for two weeks and now 6" spacing.
> 
> I liked the 3" spacing results better than the wide field spacing. This inspired me to explore other spacing. I find 6" spacing provides exceptional imaging and frequency response.
> 
> What I took from this guide is try different mic positions and spacing, then decide which is best for you.
> 
> Paul




Paul

Did you use the 8 point position?










If so, did you also raise 6" in the 3 and 4 position vs 3"?


----------



## JimShaw

AudioRaver

I have followed your thread for sometime and it has truly help my audio vs Audysse's mic positions. 

I do need some understanding regarding Dynamic EQ and Dy. Volume.

I noticed you mentioned to turn off Dy. EQ and Volume when calibrating BUT afterwards, is it better to turn on Dy. EQ and use it. Or is it a matter of subjective opinion?


m


----------



## AudiocRaver

JimShaw said:


> AudioRaver
> 
> I have followed your thread for sometime and it has truly help my audio vs Audysse's mic positions.
> 
> I do need some understanding regarding Dynamic EQ and Dy. Volume.
> 
> I noticed you mentioned to turn off Dy. EQ and Volume when calibrating BUT afterwards, is it better to turn on Dy. EQ and use it. Or is it a matter of subjective opinion?
> 
> 
> m


Interesting timing that you should ask that question. We just completed some evaluating and experimenting with Sonnie's new Martin Logan Montis speakers, and we played with Audyssey MultEQ and Audyssey Dynamic EQ through them. The thought on Dynamic EQ was that it would be an easy way to get more bass out of the system.

The concern was that it would disturb the imaging, and it does, but the amount of that disturbance is very small with a lot of material. Occasionally it got more annoying, but mostly it was usable that with Dynamic EQ on.

If you use it, watch for voices or solo instruments that drift or waver around as volume changes.


----------



## jmoussa

thanks guys for all your thoughts.

i will give all this a shot.
Just curious though , would you put the tip of the mic at ear height or the base.

by the way my equipment are
Denon 2312 avr
2 REL R328 subs via speakon connection
panasonic vierra neo plasma
Mains are Monitor Audio gx100
oppo 103 bdp


----------



## AudiocRaver

Tip of the mic at ear height.


----------



## jmoussa

thanks audiocraver:wave:


----------



## bigdogaxis

JimShaw said:


> Paul
> 
> Did you use the 8 point position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If so, did you also raise 6" in the 3 and 4 position vs 3"?


Jim 

I did the 8 point using the 102 example.










Positions 1-6 were six inches apart and yes, I raised the mic 6" in the 3 and 4 position. Points 7-8 were 48" from position 1 and 32" apart. This resulted in weak performance from the surrounds. 

Increasing the surround levels to compensate helped, but I will re-calibrate using 6" for all positions. It will be interesting to see how it will affect the back row. I will let you know how it goes.


----------



## JimShaw

AudiocRaver said:


> Interesting timing that you should ask that question. We just completed some evaluating and experimenting with Sonnie's new Martin Logan Montis speakers, and we played with Audyssey MultEQ and Audyssey Dynamic EQ through them. The thought on Dynamic EQ was that it would be an easy way to get more bass out of the system.
> 
> The concern was that it would disturb the imaging, and it does, but the amount of that disturbance is very small with a lot of material. Occasionally it got more annoying, but mostly it was usable that with Dynamic EQ on.
> 
> If you use it, watch for voices or solo instruments that drift or waver around as volume changes.



AudioRaver

From reading your post, I will keep Dy. EQ off. 

I have a 8.3 system, enough base. Don't want drift or waver.


A big Thanks


----------



## AudiocRaver

bigdogaxis said:


> Jim
> 
> I did the 8 point using the 102 example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Positions 1-6 were six inches apart and yes, I raised the mic 6" in the 3 and 4 position. Points 7-8 were 48" from position 1 and 32" apart. This resulted in weak performance from the surrounds.
> 
> Increasing the surround levels to compensate helped, but I will re-calibrate using 6" for all positions. It will be interesting to see how it will affect the back row. I will let you know how it goes.


Good point. Any mic pattern that puts the mic very close to a speaker will probably end up not having good imaging or soundstage. Better to tighten up the pattern a bit to avoid it.


----------



## AudiocRaver

JimShaw:

Probably a good idea if you are at all sensitive to such things.

When I first heard it (imaging affected by Dynamic EQ) during a speaker evaluation last week, I was not sure what was going on. Then we discovered Dynamic EQ was on and turned it off, and there were two test tracks where I quickly found it made a notable difference.

As listeners, we have individual "cost/benefit" standards for different aspects of the listening experience. In some areas, a listener might want a lot of bang for the buck, or benefit for any cost or sacrifice in another part of the experience. In other areas - imaging and soundstage for me - even a small, occasionally-noticed improvement is top priority and worth a fair amount of trouble.

Cheers!:sn:


----------



## JimShaw

AudiocRaver said:


> JimShaw:
> 
> Probably a good idea if you are at all sensitive to such things.
> 
> When I first heard it (imaging affected by Dynamic EQ) during a speaker evaluation last week, I was not sure what was going on. Then we discovered Dynamic EQ was on and turned it off, and there were two test tracks where I quickly found it made a notable difference.
> 
> As listeners, we have individual "cost/benefit" standards for different aspects of the listening experience. In some areas, a listener might want a lot of bang for the buck, or benefit for any cost or sacrifice in another part of the experience. In other areas - imaging and soundstage for me - even a small, occasionally-noticed improvement is top priority and worth a fair amount of trouble.
> 
> Cheers!:sn:


AudioRaver

Thanks for the input

Today, my wife is out having her fingernails done.

That gives me quiet time in the home. This means trying the 6" spread to see what happens. Right now I use your 3" spread and happy but this is a hobby which makes me want to test and see or I should say hear.


m


----------



## bigdogaxis

Jim - If you can save your MultEQ settings, I highly recommend it. I forgot to and last night's cal went horribly wrong. :doh: The mains (L/R full band, C 60Hz) and wides (80Hz) crossovers were the same as always. However, the surrounds went from 80Hz to 120Hz. :unbelievable: 

I can't say whether it's because I removed the seat backs or the shortened 7 and 8 positions. :scratch: My plan is to extend 7 and 8 positions until the surrounds hit 80Hz. If that fails, I will return the seat backs to their chairs and rerun MultEQ. Stay tuned...


----------



## JimShaw

bigdogaxis said:


> Jim - If you can save your MultEQ settings, I highly recommend it. I forgot to and last night's cal went horribly wrong. :doh: The mains (L/R full band, C 60Hz) and wides (80Hz) crossovers were the same as always. However, the surrounds went from 80Hz to 120Hz. :unbelievable:
> 
> I can't say whether it's because I removed the seat backs or the shortened 7 and 8 positions. :scratch: My plan is to extend 7 and 8 positions until the surrounds hit 80Hz. If that fails, I will return the seat backs to their chairs and rerun MultEQ. Stay tuned...



Bigdogaxis


I use Audyssey's MultiEQ XT32.

My surrounds have ALWAYS been high. No matter what I tried, changed out, upgraded speakers, etc. I have even talked to Chris, CEO of Audyssey. Chris said, DO NOT manually turn them down. Turning down will corrupted the Audyssey calibration. Turning up is OK but not down.

Now, this might be because I have all in-ceiling speakers. They are SpeakerCraft's high-end speakers. I have an 8.3 system.

Audyssey calibrates the fronts at 200Hz, center 250Hz, surrounds 110Hz, surround Backs 250Hz, and Wides at 90Hz.

To me, my audio is fantastic. So, I no longer try getting them down. No matter what I have tried, they remain high.

I just finished re-calibrating using AudioRaver's 101 mic positions but this time using your suggested 6" spread vs a 3" spread. I LIKE IT!

It takes me about two hours to calibrate the surrounds, manually re-setting the center and subs and then testing using three Blus that I know very well.

I will keep it where it now is. Once again, I like it. This was the first time I have really noticed a difference after calibrating from my previous calibrations. For me, the 101 chart is perfect because I don't have rear seats and changing the measurement from 3" to 6" made a difference.


----------



## bigdogaxis

Good for you Jim. I also have XT32. I'm going to mess aroundwith it and see what damage I can do. 
Paul


----------



## JimShaw

bigdogaxis said:


> Good for you Jim. I also have XT32. I'm going to mess aroundwith it and see what damage I can do.
> Paul


Post your thoughts.

I do like the 6" spread all around using pattern 101 but someday, I want to try 3" spread all around except using 6" on the 7th & 8th positions.


----------



## AudiocRaver

To me, the single most frustrating aspect of non-Pro MultEQ is that - for most AVRs - one cannot save a setup and easily reload it. That makes every setup run like starting from scratch, and there is always a _little_ fear that you will not be able to get back to that previous setup that was _almost_ good enough.

Which, of course, is precisely why the Audyssey folks made it that way, so that Pro kit and license start looking more and more attractive. Pretty smart.


----------



## bigdogaxis

The save profile option is available with network Denon CI AVR's. It's accessed in the Setup menu of the web controller.


----------



## JimShaw

bigdogaxis said:


> The save profile option is available with network Denon CI AVR's. It's accessed in the Setup menu of the web controller.


bigdogaxis

One of your past posts you mentioned: Save your calibration. Which I always do and I did not think anything more about it. Then this post made me think, do you mean I can save the calibration the I like and try others. If the others aren't as good, I can go back in and bring out the saved calibration and all's well?

If that is what you mean, that is great. I would love trying a lot of experiments.

I went into set up and did not notice where to find the web controller. Could you walk me through it?

------------------------------------

I called Denon and asked them if a calibration can be saved to try other combinations and if the others were not good, I was able re-call the one I liked. I was old, YES.

I am so excited about this because I have a calibration that I like and I would be able to test others and not worry about never getting back what I have.

The How To is not in the manual. Denon quickly ran through the procedure which entails storing the calibration on my computer but I still don't under stand. Can you or anyone walk me through the steps????


m


----------



## bigdogaxis

Jim, you can save your system settings to your computer using the Denon Web Controller. I think you have a 4311 like me. You can find these instructions with photos on page 70 of the manual. 

Go into the GUI menu, settings, network info and note your IP address. Ensure Network Standby is enabled/On. Open an internet browser from your computer. 

In the URL space where you would type www.hometheatershack.com, instead type your 4311 iP address like http://192.168.1.43/index.asp to open Denon web controller. 

The top left screen will show: 
Denon Web Controller 
AVR-4311CI

The middle of the screen shows three icons: MAIN ZONE, ZONE 2, ZONE 3 
Below the icons you will click SETUP MENU. 

The Save and Load links are at the bottom SETUP MENU screen list. Save the current settings file to your computer for recovery purposes. Use Load to upload your saved settings to the AVR. 

You may experiment with confidence, knowing your best settings are saved. If your results improve, save those settings. I can't remember if you can save multiple settings, but I don't see why not. The hard part would be keeping them straight. 

I hope this helps.

Paul


----------



## JimShaw

bigdogaxis said:


> Jim, you can save your system settings to your computer using the Denon Web Controller. I think you have a 4311 like me. You can find these instructions with photos on page 70 of the manual.
> 
> Go into the GUI menu, settings, network info and note your IP address. Ensure Network Standby is enabled/On. Open an internet browser from your computer.
> 
> In the URL space where you would type www.hometheatershack.com, instead type your 4311 iP address like http://192.168.1.43/index.asp to open Denon web controller.
> 
> The top left screen will show:
> Denon Web Controller
> AVR-4311CI
> 
> The middle of the screen shows three icons: MAIN ZONE, ZONE 2, ZONE 3
> Below the icons you will click SETUP MENU.
> 
> The Save and Load links are at the bottom SETUP MENU screen list. Save the current settings file to your computer for recovery purposes. Use Load to upload your saved settings to the AVR.
> 
> You may experiment with confidence, knowing your best settings are saved. If your results improve, save those settings. I can't remember if you can save multiple settings, but I don't see why not. The hard part would be keeping them straight.
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> Paul




A big, exciting help, thanks

I'll try it tomorrow and see what happens. If all is OK, I'll starting trying different calibrations

I talked to Denon today and was told for a mere $2000, I can have a pro come in and they, with all their instruments and the Audyssey Pro, will make it perfect.

I think I will save what I now have and calibrate to see if I can find an even better calibration and save $2000.

Once again, thanks



m


----------



## bigdogaxis

:rofl: "Surely, they can't be serious." (From the movie Airplane) 

I'm with you. I can do a lot of minor league calibration before I spend that kind of money. :spend: 

That's why we call it our hobby. I think you can get the pro kit for WAY less than that.


----------



## AustinJerry

bigdogaxis said:


> Jim, you can save your system settings to your computer using the Denon Web Controller. I think you have a 4311 like me. You can find these instructions with photos on page 70 of the manual.
> 
> Go into the GUI menu, settings, network info and note your IP address. Ensure Network Standby is enabled/On. Open an internet browser from your computer.
> 
> In the URL space where you would type www.hometheatershack.com, instead type your 4311 iP address like http://192.168.1.43/index.asp to open Denon web controller.
> 
> The top left screen will show:
> Denon Web Controller
> AVR-4311CI
> 
> The middle of the screen shows three icons: MAIN ZONE, ZONE 2, ZONE 3
> Below the icons you will click SETUP MENU.
> 
> The Save and Load links are at the bottom SETUP MENU screen list. Save the current settings file to your computer for recovery purposes. Use Load to upload your saved settings to the AVR.
> 
> You may experiment with confidence, knowing your best settings are saved. If your results improve, save those settings. I can't remember if you can save multiple settings, but I don't see why not. The hard part would be keeping them straight.
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> Paul


The Denon network load/save feature is extremely valuable, but there are a few quirks that you need to be aware of. First of all, the Network Standby setting can cause issues. On the web screen, Paul is correct--Denon recommends that the Network Standby setting be On. But a number of people have reported that the Save is unsuccessful unless Network Standby is Off. I mention this only so that you can try both settings if you are having an issue with getting a successful save.

The second issue is that, on occasion, the Denon will prompt you to save an empty configuration file. No one knows why this happens, but it does, and there is nothing as disappointing as returning to a saved configuration file, trying to load it, and finding it is an invalid file. Fortunately, this is easy to test for.. After you have saved the configuration file, use a text editor to open the file (Notepad works on a Windows computer, and there are free downloadable Hex editors on the web). A bad configuration file will be nothing but zeros (i.e. empty), while a good configuration file will contain data (in hex format). You may need to scroll down a couple of pages before you see the data. Get in the habit of always checking your saved configuration file.

And finally, a tip. When you save the configuration file, give it a descriptive name. Here is an example, descriptive file name: "Config_2014-1-22 (Using AudioCravers tight mic spacing).dat". This makes it easy to identify different saved configurations.

And BTW, it takes approximately 15 minutes to successfully save a configuration file, and slightly less than 10 minutes to load a saved configuration. Be patient, and get in the habit of ALWAYS saving your new configurations.


----------



## JimShaw

AustinJerry said:


> The Denon network load/save feature is extremely valuable, but there are a few quirks that you need to be aware of. First of all, the Network Standby setting can cause issues. On the web screen, Paul is correct--Denon recommends that the Network Standby setting be On. But a number of people have reported that the Save is unsuccessful unless Network Standby is Off. I mention this only so that you can try both settings if you are having an issue with getting a successful save.
> 
> The second issue is that, on occasion, the Denon will prompt you to save an empty configuration file. No one knows why this happens, but it does, and there is nothing as disappointing as returning to a saved configuration file, trying to load it, and finding it is an invalid file. Fortunately, this is easy to test for.. After you have saved the configuration file, use a text editor to open the file (Notepad works on a Windows computer, and there are free downloadable Hex editors on the web). A bad configuration file will be nothing but zeros (i.e. empty), while a good configuration file will contain data (in hex format). You may need to scroll down a couple of pages before you see the data. Get in the habit of always checking your saved configuration file.
> 
> And finally, a tip. When you save the configuration file, give it a descriptive name. Here is an example, descriptive file name: "Config_2014-1-22 (Using AudioCravers tight mic spacing).dat". This makes it easy to identify different saved configurations.
> 
> And BTW, it takes approximately 15 minutes to successfully save a configuration file, and slightly less than 10 minutes to load a saved configuration. Be patient, and get in the habit of ALWAYS saving your new configurations.



Here is another way that I just discovered to really fine tune calibrations BEFORE saving permanently on Denon's Web.

On my Denon remote, there are three Quick Set buttons, Quick Set 1, 2 and 3.

While your system is on, push and hold Quick Set 1 for about five seconds. When all the data has been stored in Quick Set 1, the memory screen will appear on the TV. Done, all the data has been saved in the receiver. Do another calibration. Store that data into Quick Set 2. Then go on to another calibration and save that to Quick Set 3.

You now have three stored calibrations in your receiver. Plug in your test demos and listen to the differences in calibrations by touching the Quick Set buttons going back and forth to really fine tune and discover the best of the three saved calibrations.

Once that has been discovered, save that calibration to the Denon Web for a permanent save which you will need if you ever have to reboot the receiver as I have had to do.

All the data Quick Save saves...
1) Input Source
2) Volume
3) Surround Mode
4) Video Select
5) Audyssey Setting: MultiEQ (on mine) XT32, Dynamic EQ, Dynamic Volume

This does work. I tested by saving my set up into Quick Set 1. Went back and changed the front speaker volume and saved the changes in the receiver and then I stored the new data into Quick Set 2. I then could switch back and forth between Quick Set 1 and 2 and both sets of data were there.

This is fun. I now can test and try different mic positions without the fear of losing what I now have and like.


P.S.: This is one great thread. Thanks AudiocRaver


----------



## AustinJerry

Jim, while I agree that QuickSelect is a very useful feature, and I use it myself all the time, it only saves certain per-input settings. For example, it saves the mode (e.g. Pro-logic, Stereo, etc.) for the input, plus the master volume setting, Audyssey DEQ and Dynamic Volume settings, DSX settings, and several other settings, but QuickSelect *does not save Audyssey calibration filters*.

You can verify this yourself by following this procedure:
- For the current Audyssey calibration, write down all the speaker distance and trim settings.
- Follow the procedure you mentioned for saving a QuickSelect memory.
- Run a fresh calibration which, because of variability in mic placement, is likely to result in small differences in speaker distance and trim settings.
- Now go back into the QuickSelect you saved in step 2. You will see that it contains the new distance and trim settings, not the ones from the previous calibration.

I wish it worked like you said, but unfortunately it doesn't. Not to worry, the Network Save still accomplishes the same objective.


----------



## JimShaw

I did a test by changing the front speaker volume and saving the change in the receiver to QS2. I then went back and fourth between QS1 and QS2 and it did seem to save the different speaker settings.

I'll have to go back in an actually do a complete calibration and compare.

I was excited about actually doing quick comparisons between three calibrations.

Tomorrow was going to be a great day by doing calibrations and comparisons.

You sure know how to gloom a day.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Jerry,

The details you share with us are beyond awesome! As before, thanks so much for the time you spend sharing your experience with us.:clap:

Wayne


----------



## AustinJerry

JimShaw said:


> I did a test by changing the front speaker volume and saving the change in the receiver to QS2. I then went back and fourth between QS1 and QS2 and it did seem to save the different speaker settings.
> 
> I'll have to go back in an actually do a complete calibration and compare.
> 
> I was excited about actually doing quick comparisons between three calibrations.
> 
> Tomorrow was going to be a great day by doing calibrations and comparisons.
> 
> You sure know how to gloom a day.


The real "tell" is to compare the Denon EQ graphs, which are a crude representation of what the calibration looks like. Take a before and after screenshot of a couple of the EQ screens and you will see that the calibration settings are not being preserved by QS.

Didn't mean to gloom your day--after all, be happy that you have network load/save. Other AVR brands don't have this awsome capability.


----------



## JimShaw

AustinJerry said:


> The real "tell" is to compare the Denon EQ graphs, which are a crude representation of what the calibration looks like. Take a before and after screenshot of a couple of the EQ screens and you will see that the calibration settings are not being preserved by QS.
> 
> Didn't mean to gloom your day--after all, be happy that you have network load/save. Other AVR brands don't have this awsome capability.


I thank you. I do not need to do all the extra work. I will take your info as correct.

I love the Denon Web.

I was just talking to Denon. Their new receivers coming out in spring should have the new 2.0 HDMI ports. Now, I can start upgrading and maybe their QS's will store Audyssey calibrations correctly the way we Audyssey users would like (at least the way I would like)


----------



## bigdogaxis

I missed a lot today. Jerry, I've learned a lot from you over the past year or two. Thanks so much for the file save bug warning. In the words of Johnny Carson, "I did not know that." 

Jim, that's a neat trick you passed along. I knew those buttons could be customized, but never invested the time to figure it out. I will put those buttons to work.


----------



## JimShaw

bigdogaxis said:


> I missed a lot today. Jerry, I've learned a lot from you over the past year or two. Thanks so much for the file save bug warning. In the words of Johnny Carson, "I did not know that."
> 
> Jim, that's a neat trick you passed along. I knew those buttons could be customized, but never invested the time to figure it out. I will put those buttons to work.


bigdog

Jerry got back to me about using the QS buttons. He mentioned that the QS buttons do not keep the calibrations correctly when a different calibration is stored in a different QS button. Yesterday, I had nothing to do. So, I stored calibrations into QS1 and a different calibration in QS2. 

For a test, I changed the volume of the front left speaker and changed the distance of that speaker and saved the calibration to QS2. I then opened up QS1 to take a look. The volume of the front left speaker was what it was suppose to be but the distance had changed to the setting that was just saved in QS2.

This means you can't trust the QS buttons to store and keep the calibration when another QS button is used to store a different calibration.

I was reeeeeally disappointed.

Today, I stored the Audyssey calibration to the Denon Web that I like. My first time to do it. I just went into the receiver and changed the volume and distance to the left front speaker of the calibration as another test. I am now down loading the saved data file of the correct calibration on the web to see if the down load does change to the correct version in the receiver. If it does, I will be doing new calibration with different mic settings


----------



## magic

I'm crossing my fingers that it works

If it does you have to say the words....lol


----------



## bigdogaxis

UPDATE on my MultEQ XT32 calibration using 6" spacing versus the guide's 3" testing. 
Lessons Learned from my experience (YMMV):

Do not remove seat backs for calibration.

Here's why: Using 6" mic spacing _(clarification - points 1,2,5,6 @ ear height; 3,4,7,8 raised 3")_, the missing seat backs changed the C/Wides/Surrounds FR from 60Hz/80Hz/80Hz (original 3" spacing cal) to 80Hz/80Hz/120Hz resulting in harsh tones and shrill midrange. Audyssey graphs were ridiculous - sorry, no pics.

Returned seat backs to their upright position and covered leather seating with soft blankets.

Repeated the cal with 6" spacing, resulting in C/80Hz, Wides/60Hz, Surrounds/80Hz. 
Noticed sub setting @ -9.5 and remembered reading about lost headroom with such an offset.

Repeated the 6" spacing cal, setting both subs to the 72dB lower limit instead of 77dB upper limit. Note that XT32 calibrates dual subs where any dB outside of the suggested 72-77dB range displays in red.

The resulting cal channel level offsets SW1/2 -6.0/-6.5, L/C/R -5.5/-5.5/-6.0, WL/R -5.5/-6.5, SL/R -6.5/-7.5
This is the first time all levels were this close. 
Commentary: I believe setting SW levels too high causes MultEQ XT32 to overcompensate other channel levels. My super secret scientific conclusion is drawn by comparing master volume level @ 90dB using an analog RS SPL and an iPad SPL app to cross check. The previous cal resulted in a comfortable listening volume around -10 for action films and -8 for dramas. 

I watched some of Rush Hour on DirecTV before I had to leave. This cal allows a comfortable listening volume around -4; reference volume is tolerable. Now that I am home from work travel, I can audition my BR reference films on the OPPO. 

More to come,
Paul


----------



## AudiocRaver

bigdogaxis said:


> UPDATE on my MultEQ XT32 calibration using 6" spacing versus the guide's 3" testing.
> Lessons Learned:
> 
> Do not remove seat backs for calibration.
> Using 6" spacing, the missing seat backs changed the C/Wides/Surrounds FR from 60Hz/80Hz/80Hz (3" spacing) to 80Hz/80Hz/120Hz resulting in harsh tones and shrill midrange. Audyssey graphs were ridiculous - sorry, no pics.
> Returned seat backs to their upright position and covered with all leather seating with soft blankets.
> Repeated the cal with 6" spacing, resulting in C/80Hz, Wides/60Hz, Surrounds/80Hz.
> Noticed sub setting @ -9.5 and remembered reading about lost headroom with such an offset.
> Repeated the 6" spacing cal dropping setting both subs to the 72dB lower limit instead of 77dB upper limit. Note that XT32 calibrates dual subs where any dB outside of the suggested 72-77dB range displays in red.
> The resulting cal channel level offsets SW1/2 -6.0/-6.5, L/C/R -5.5/-5.5/-6.0, WL/R -5.5/-6.5, SL/R -6.5/-7.5
> This is the first time all levels were this close.
> Commentary: Previous cal's resulted in a comfortable listening volume around -10 for action films and -8 for dramas. Based on viewing one film on DirecTV, the latest cal allows a comfortable listening volume around -4 whereas reference can now be tolerated. Now that I am home from work travel, I can audition my reference films through my OPPO.
> 
> More to come,
> Paul


I always appreciate detailed feedback about results like you have given. Thanks for taking the time to share your experience with us.

Removing / Not-Removing seat back (or chair altogether) can be very helpful in some rooms and hurtful in others, it is one of those variables the individual has to experiment with to find what is best for his room. My own experience with it has been mostly good, but it is not a surprise to hear that it caused you problems. Not-Removing keeps the acoustical situation for MultEQ calibration closer to real life, so that is probably the failsafe approach (others may disagree).

Glad you mentioned the soft blankets over the leather surfaces. Experience is leading us to conclude that, especially on the LP seat back, they are must-have items, both during MultEQ setup _and during listening._ It will be no time at all before enterprising accessory suppliers have velour "chair socks" (suggest a better name?) available in various colors/sizes to fit over seat backs, staying in place nicely, to reduce reflections.

On the 6" spacing, again a personal choice, only experimentation can tel you what is best for your room/seating. Working with HTS Owner Sonnie Parker's new Martin Logan Monits L & R fronts, StageX center, and previously purchased Motion 12 rears, we got excellent results with the 3" spacing and only 4 (four) measurement points - center, 3" left of center, 3" right of center, and back to center again. The application calls for more 2-channel listening than movies, but the result worked well for music and cinema.

?hanks again for the feedback.


----------



## bigdogaxis

If I hadn't read your guide, I never would've used the 3" mic spacing with great results. And I never would've kept wondering 'what if I try 6" mic spacing.' YOU turned me into a MultEQ rebel. 

I, too, have MartinLogan loudspeakers. My mains are ML Source, ML Matinee center, ML Motion FX wides, ML Motion 4 surrounds, and ML Depth subs. 

I'm having fun with my sound system again. BTW, I sat my wife in the PLP and played her several high-res flacs. She's never really cared about my setup, so imagine my surprise when a minute or two later she closes her eyes and settles into the chair. 

I ask her opinion and she responds...ssh, I'm listening to my music. Then she's going on about how good the imaging is, asking if I bought more speakers. I explained that only two were playing. That was the 3" spacing cal. 

Most likely, I will reinstate the 3" cal over the recent 6" cal. It seems I like the 3" imaging over the 6" spacing.


----------



## omega6666

bigdogaxis said:


> Jim, you can save your system settings to your computer using the Denon Web Controller. I think you have a 4311 like me. You can find these instructions with photos on page 70 of the manual.


I own a Denon AVR X2000, but couldn't find a save/load option within the setup menu (or in the manual), so I assumed I should get a higher class Denon for that functionality.

...until I just read this on another forum about the X2000;
_Web browser control officially supported, including SAVE/LOAD feature (note that this is only available with Internet Explorer!)_
Can't wait to get home and access via IE instead of FF...

[edit:] Well, couldn't wait, so tried it via remote desktop on my phone 
But there were no save/load options :/ Also tried the supposedly direct access link (AVR's-IP-address)/Setup_Index.asp, in my case 192.168.1.139/Setup_Index.asp, but that also didnt work.
[edit2:] Nevermind. The following did it for me 

_SAVE/LOAD procedure - Due to the use of browsers other than Internet Explorer for the SAVE/LOAD feature possibly being unstable, Denon removed their use in the Denon "X" series models; however, if you prefer to give them a try, forum member enricoclaudio reported that you can use either Firefox or Safari by entering the following URL into either browser window....*http://192.168.X.X/SETUP/OTHERS/f_others.asp* replacing the "X's" in the IP address with your own AVR's IP address.

Using Internet Explorer
Note that if you are using Internet Explorer 10 (or other browser) and do not immediately see the SAVE/LOAD setting below the General button (as noted in the image below), after selecting the Setup Menu from the top menu, per forum members Ace Deprave/Sean Spamilton, try either selecting the Compatibility View icon (broken square) in the URL address bar on your laptop or go to Tools - Compatibility View Settings and add the AVR's IP address and you should see the SAVE/LOAD ..._

Also, if this goes wrong when loading these saved settings, these instructions might be better (not much to do with Google Chrome, dispite of it's title).

I'm so happy now. Also remember URLs are Case Sensitive...


----------



## JimShaw

I have been calibrating with Audyssey for years using Audyssey's mic positions which uses a 2 feet sepration between mic positions.

I read AudiocRaver's Audyssey MultEQ FAQ thread. After reading, I tried a few different mic positions like the 3” spread but never with 3 & 4 positions being raised or 7 & 8 positions set wide. I thought my system sounded very good.

Then I read bigdogaxis' post on this thread about mic positions of 6”, also raising positions 3 & 4 six inches with positions 7 & 8 set wide. I gave it a try.










My surround has NEVER sound better. I would no longer want to re-calibrate out of fear of losing what had been accomplished.

Then I discovered I could save the Audyssey calibration that I thought was prefect in Denon's Web Control which erased my fear of losing what I now enjoy to test again. This time, I used AudiocRaver's 101 pattern with 3” spacing, raising 3 & 4 three inches and 7 & 8 set wide as per AudiocRaver which is what I should have tried from the very beginning.

Now, this I don't understand. How can it be that my surrounds, using AudiocRaver's 101 pattern as he stated, sound more directly behind me than ever before? This calibration I am keeping. But, once again, how can this be? How can just changing mic positions a few inches here and there create that much of a difference in how the audio from behind my seating position sounds????


Thanks AudiocRaver



m


----------



## bigdogaxis

JimShaw - I ended up back at the recommended 3" spacing/height positions. I, too, am dumbfounded :scratch: as to why the 3" spacing compared to the 6" spacing is so much better. Additionally, I sat in every seat and found the 3" spacing trumped the 6" in every seat including the 2nd row :unbelievable: - Thank you AudiocRaver :clap: 

Paul


----------



## bigdogaxis

omega6666 - glad you found your way to the configuration Save function. I was gonna say I've accessed the Denon web controller in Chrome, Firefox, and Safari with no issues. However, I did not use the Save/Load function. 

Paul


----------



## JimShaw

bigdogaxis said:


> JimShaw - I ended up back at the recommended 3" spacing/height positions. I, too, am dumbfounded :scratch: as to why the 3" spacing compared to the 6" spacing is so much better. Additionally, I sat in every seat and found the 3" spacing trumped the 6" in every seat including the 2nd row :unbelievable: - Thank you AudiocRaver :clap:
> 
> Paul



Paul

It is a mystery. 



m


----------



## omega6666

Thanks Paul, I'm very pleased with this new functionality of my still very new Denon . Nice to have a forum like this.

As to the mic patterns, I'm always a little bit reserved when it comes to subjective audio measurements, especially when you're not able to switch back and forth with a toggle button to make the difference more obvious for the mind. Echoic memory only lasts up to 4 seconds, or without interferences, 20 seconds.

The differences in IC, with 3" patterns seem to be pretty impressive, when I read the postings on it (it's what I've used, and am in awe with the results), but I've also read praises about audio improvements caused by extremely expensive cable replacements, that fail to be reproduced in blind tests.

So I was wondering; FR is relatively easy to measure objectively, but is there also a way to objectively measure IC?

Tom


----------



## JimShaw

omega6666 said:


> Thanks Paul, I'm very pleased with this new functionality of my still very new Denon . Nice to have a forum like this.
> 
> As to the mic patterns, I'm always a little bit reserved when it comes to subjective audio measurements, especially when you're not able to switch back and forth with a toggle button to make the difference more obvious for the mind. Echoic memory only lasts up to 4 seconds, or without interferences, 20 seconds.
> 
> The differences in IC, with 3" patterns seem to be pretty impressive, when I read the postings on it (it's what I've used, and am in awe with the results), but I've also read praises about audio improvements caused by extremely expensive cable replacements, that fail to be reproduced in blind tests.
> 
> So I was wondering; FR is relatively easy to measure objectively, but is there also a way to objectively measure IC?
> 
> Tom


Yes, Tom. I agree with your thought regarding echoic memory lasting for a few seconds. But in my case where I have used a three minute section of a Blu to listen to surround audio for many years and know every nuiance. I can tell if one dog bark, scream, or creature scurrying through a tree is a little off to the side or futher behind my listening position. It was obvious to me that my changng from a 6" mic position to a 3" position did help the surround audio noticeably.


----------



## bigdogaxis

Hi Tom, I agree subjectivity is best served cautiously. That's why reading through the Audyssey MultEQ FAQ Setup Guide seemed a bit pretentious. Once I saw the REW measurements of the mic position patterns, I had to hear it for myself. 

Further to your point with regard to IC. Subjective or objective, that is the question. Like Jim, I have reference material I've used for years. Music imaging at 3" spacing is so immersive, I have to check the audio mode to ensure surround sound is not active. For instance, Don Henley's high hat in the Eagles' "Hotel California" is clearly situated to the right of center (stage left). The kick drum is centered, while the snare is slightly off center. The other toms and cymbals reflect the same positioning Don uses in his drum kit today. 

Movie audio is quite different, almost acute. By that I mean the surround audio is more accurate in sound and location. It seems the sound stage is more tightly configured and no longer ambiguous. Again, no way to measure IC other than hearing things in a reference film for the first time. 

Like a restaurant scene where offscreen dialogue is now discernible. Or like the scene from Master & Commander of the ensuing chaos of the ship's crew during the first attack. Everyone knows about the overhead effects in that scene, but now the dialog is palpable in my system whereas it was not before. 

There you have my unscientific method of IC measurement. Echoic or not, if you're hearing something from reference material for the first time, is it subjective or objective? :huh: 

Happy to play along, 
Paul


----------



## omega6666

Yes, it must be the case that, once you repetitively hear the same thing the same way over and over again, while also paying attention to little details, that the echoic memory starts feeding other parts of the memory, that might not even be preserved for audio. That way a difference will become very obvious.

Still I think a graph with IC per frequency, or some sort of average measured IC value would be much preferred for sharing results on a forum. People tend to react more or less enthousiastically to the same results.
Also buying a new audio product, or putting time and energy in changing your audio, can make your wanting to hear something change to thinking you actually hear it.

Sound localization depends on interaural time (phase) differences between the 2 ears with sounds below 800 hz. It depends on level (volume) differences between ears above 1600 hz, which means that for those frequencies the FR of left and right speakers must follow each other relatively. They may be too loud or too soft, but relatively they must be following the same slopes and peaks.
In between 800 and 1600 hz, there is a transition of interaural time and level differences priority.

Also the lower (subwoofer) frequencies can't be localized, but I'm also sure the higher frequencies aren't ideal for localization, but I'm not sure where those frequencies start. Anyone ever tried to find a cricket by it's sound in their younger years? 
Higher frequencies also start cancelling or amplifying each other chaotically, especially in our rooms, which is why we apply octave smoothing with REW.

Is this measuring of IC already tried somewhere? Does anyone have any ideas on this?

Tom

[edit:] Hey Paul, I just now noticed your post. I guess we were cross-posting.  
Well, my point is not so much if I believe someone's results or not. The reason I chose for 3" spacing myself, is that it's the best bet, since it's praised frequently.
It's more that I would like to be able to compare results of different Shacksters, and have results that are clear and precise. For instance, I always knew my new sub standalone was a bit boomy and non-musical, but once I had a FR graph, I knew precisely what was going on subjectively.


----------



## bigdogaxis

Tom - If you don't mind, I'm going to copy your auditory frequencies explanation to my iPad notes for future reference. 

I can't remember if Wayne stated the following in his guide. To me, the 3" spacing makes sense considering one's ears are roughly 6" apart and about 3" - 4" back of one's face. 

I suppose the mic positioning is to EQ around one's head given the 3" rise for samples 3 & 4. Perhaps extending mic position 7 & 8 is to tame reflections whether outward for a single row or backward for a 2nd row. 

So Wayne, do you or one of the sound experts have an opinion on IC measurement? 
Paul


----------



## AustinJerry

Sorry, I must have missed something. What is "IC measurement"?


----------



## omega6666

This is an interesting article on this, btw. I guess I'm part of 'the opposite camp' .



bigdogaxis said:


> I can't remember if Wayne stated the following in his guide. To me, the 3" spacing makes sense considering one's ears are roughly 6" apart and about 3" - 4" back of one's face.
> 
> I suppose the mic positioning is to EQ around one's head given the 3" rise for samples 3 & 4. Perhaps extending mic position 7 & 8 is to tame reflections whether outward for a single row or backward for a 2nd row.


I agree, it must definitely have something to do with the 6" space between your ears. I think that the only variable we have of changing and improving IC is the volume difference between our ears per frequency. It could well be that a certain frequency, let's say 1125Hz, in our Audyssey sweeps (which is passed very quickly) for our left speaker, is cancelled out for a certain amount because of dissonants (a few dB's is enough) caused by reflections of the lower frequencies that have just passed in the sweep at a certain measurement location. Moving the mic for the 2nd measurement with 3", might be having the exact opposite effect on our left speaker, and rather have an amplification of that 1125 Hz by reflections of lower frequencies that have just passed in the Audyssey sweep. These 2 measurements average each other out, and are evened out for EQ calculation. If those same measurement locations for the left speaker would have a different effect on measuring our right speaker, though, it could be that Audyssey makes changes at that frequency that are not good for IC. We might be able to let Audyssey change what needs to be changed for improving IC, and not make false adjustments in the important IC frequency range, simply by choosing the right mic spacing pattern.
The wavelength of the example of 1125 Hz is 12", which means this part







of the 1125 Hz soundwave is that long. So at 0" (left ear) it is zero, at 3" it is max up, at 6" (right ear) it is zero again, at 9" it is max down, and finally at 12" it is zero again. So if these waves at these frequencies could form mild standing wave patterns, they would be only that small within our rooms, and have some effect on our MultEQ measurements, even for a few inches of spacing.

This might be why we need to always take the maximum amount of measurements, but also why spacing is that important. By smartly spacing the right distance (maybe we can even calculate this to the decimal), we might somehow focus on getting the most important sound localization frequencies right. Now just for someone to figure out how this works out exactly, if something like this is actually the case .

[edit:] Sorry Jerry, IC stands for Image Clarity


----------



## AustinJerry

omega6666 said:


> [edit:] Sorry Jerry, IC stands for Image Clarity


Thanks. I'm back to following and understanding the discussion now!


----------



## AustinJerry

omega6666 said:


> This is an interesting article on this, btw. I guess I'm part of 'the opposite camp' .


If by "opposite camp" you mean those who believe there is value in automate room correction technology and that measurements provide valuable insight into audio performance, then I am in that camp as well.


----------



## bigdogaxis

I've been thinking about this whole tight mic positions Audyssey calibration affecting the IC thing. MultEQ XT32 takes 8 FR sweep measurements by position. Then, I suppose, it takes every speaker measurement and bundles it into an Audyssey EQ result. Is measuring the overall calibration result the next logical step? - Paul


----------



## omega6666

Most certainly! REW is an amazing piece of software for that.


----------



## mvision7m

Question for anyone with experience or knowledge. 

All of my previous MultiEQ runs (prior to and including today) have returned pretty consistent results as far as distance, level and size of my 5.1 setup. Always sets the sizes of my LCR as large, rears small (60Hz x-over) and 1sub. 

All previous runs showed the distances of my front left speaker as 9.7 ft and my front right as 9.5 ft. 

So today, while using a calibration CD, my OPPO BDP-95 connected via it's 7.1 analog out to my processor which was in "pure" mode I achieved great two channel sound that had all the hallmarks of proper speaker set-up. 

One of the things I did to achieve that sound quality was I moved that left front speaker up just about two tenths of an inch (so my FL & FR should be 9.5 ft from my main listening seat) and that locked the sound in nice and tight. Great, clean, tight bass, clear snappy highs and a very smooth midrange. 

Anyway, I know that Audyssey isn't in use when using analog. So, I switched sources (HDMI) and re-ran Audyssey now that I had great two channel reproduction and again, my processor still shows the front left speaker as being 9.7 feet away from the mic and the right 9.5 ft. That's in spite of me moving the front left speaker up those two tenths of an inch. 

Can anyone possibly account for that? Should I leave it as Audyssey/processor sets it? Or, change the front left speaker distance to 9.5 ft to match the right speaker? 

Also, if the processor sets my LCR as large, should I change them all to small? SVS recommends crossing my main (LCR) speakers over to the sub at 60Hz which I have done but if anyone here has a different point of view based on actual experience I'd appreciate hearing about it. 

I hope my post is clear and concise. Thanks for any help, info or insight.


----------



## AustinJerry

Two tenths of an inch is not a very big distance. A slightly different mic position could easily account for that discrepancy. I too make an extra effort to ensure that my left and right speaker distances are exactly the same. I run one audyssey measurement, click the Calculate button, and examine the Audyssey-calculated distance. If it isn't exact, I adjust the speaker position and repeat the process until the distances are the same. I always trust the Audyssey-calculated electronic distances, rather than any manual method using a tape measure. Having the distances exactly the same makes an audible difference in imaging, especially for two-channel music in Stereo. I have gone to a considerable amount of trouble to make sure my listening environment is perfectly symmetrical, with center and surround speakers also at the same distance from the MLP.

I would never adjust the speaker distance in the AVR after running Audyssey.

WRT large vs. small, you should always set your speakers to small, assuming you have one or more subwoofers. This allows your AVR to use bass management, and allows your sub(s) to handle the low frequencies like they are designed to do. If you have a measurement system like REW, you can experiment with various crossover values to see which one produces the smoothest response. I would start with 80Hz.


----------



## mvision7m

AustinJerry said:


> Two tenths of an inch is not a very big distance. A slightly different mic position could easily account for that discrepancy. I too make an extra effort to ensure that my left and right speaker distances are exactly the same. I run one audyssey measurement, click the Calculate button, and examine the Audyssey-calculated distance. If it isn't exact, I adjust the speaker position and repeat the process until the distances are the same. I always trust the Audyssey-calculated electronic distances, rather than any manual method using a tape measure. Having the distances exactly the same makes an audible difference in imaging, especially for two-channel music in Stereo. I have gone to a considerable amount of trouble to make sure my listening environment is perfectly symmetrical, with center and surround speakers also at the same distance from the MLP. I would never adjust the speaker distance in the AVR after running Audyssey. WRT large vs. small, you should always set your speakers to small, assuming you have one or more subwoofers. This allows your AVR to use bass management, and allows your sub(s) to handle the low frequencies like they are designed to do. If you have a measurement system like REW, you can experiment with various crossover values to see which one produces the smoothest response. I would start with 80Hz.


Great info. Thanks for the quick response.


----------



## bigdogaxis

@mvision - My experience is that mic position contributes to distance discrepancy. It's difficult to place the mic with precision, especially 6-8 times. If your speaker distance and mic position are true, check speaker toe-in. 

I calculated a distance tolerance based on 10(0.1/12") = 0.083" per decimal point, multiplied by mic placement distance. Currently, I am following Wayne's Audyssey guide using 3" spacing in 8 positions to get 0.249 max allowable result. Therefore, anything beyond 0.2 I recalibrate. 

Don't take my word for it, I'm no engineer. My logic may be ridiculous, but it works for me. 
-Paul


----------



## bigdogaxis

Jerry is a trustworthy source. He documents a lot of his pursuit of audio nirvana. He makes a lot of valid points. Most notable are do not change calculate distance; do change all speakers from Lg to Sm. 

My speaker mfg, MartinLogan, warns that a center channel speaker can be severely damaged if set to lg. I'm sure Jerry and Wayne can back this up with FR measurements. 

Personally, I change my speaker size to small, but leave the crossovers as set by Audyssey. When mains crossover is set to 40 Hz, I raise it to 60 Hz because the bass is thin for my taste. I will be measuring FR with REW to check my theory. 

I love tinkering. 
-Paul


----------



## Kal Rubinson

AustinJerry said:


> Two tenths of an inch is not a very big distance.


Two tenths of a *foot *is not a very big difference.


----------



## JimShaw

bigdogaxis said:


> Jerry is a trustworthy source. He documents a lot of his pursuit of audio nirvana. He makes a lot of valid points. Most notable are do not change calculate distance; do change all speakers from Lg to Sm.
> 
> My speaker mfg, MartinLogan, warns that a center channel speaker can be severely damaged if set to lg. I'm sure Jerry and Wayne can back this up with FR measurements.
> 
> Personally, I change my speaker size to small, but leave the crossovers as set by Audyssey. When mains crossover is set to 40 Hz, I raise it to 60 Hz because the bass is thin for my taste. I will be measuring FR with REW to check my theory.
> 
> I love tinkering.
> -Paul


Paul

A few years ago, I talked to Chris from Audyssey in regards to crossover and other adjustments after calibration. He mentioned that all re-adjustments can be made EXCEPT for crossover. He said that crossover can be raised (as you do) but never lowered. Lowering seems to change Audyssey's filtering.

For some reason my crossovers have ALWAYS been set high by Audyssey. Mains will be 200-250, surround might be in the 150 range, Wides in the 90 range, etc. For years I have tested ways to get them down even with the help of Chris from Audyssey but I have finally come to the conclusion that it is what it is. My system sounds great. So, I no longer worry about it. My guess is the reason why is that they are in-ceiling speakers????? SpeakerCraft's high-end in-ceiling speakers but still in-ceiling.


----------



## bigdogaxis

QUESTION: Audyssey settings are well documented and debated, but what about the separate 2ch settings? 

I posted a question in the subwoofer forum asking about my sub settings. http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...-martinlogan-depth-i-controls.html#post677321 
My concern is with the frequency of the kick drum, possibly the 40-80 Hz range. In discussing the matter with Sonnie, the subject turned toward Audyssey's effect on music. 

Until I conduct some REW measurements, it is uncertain where to lay blame. The sub delivers the deep synthesizer bass, but not the kick drum. I've tried mains at Lg, then, Sm with crossover at 40, 60, & 80 Hz - nothing. 

Sonnie suggested disabling DynEQ which I haven't had a chance to try. Do y'all have any comments on enhancing the kick drum without compromising cinema settings?
-Paul


----------



## bigdogaxis

JimShaw said:


> Paul A few years ago, I talked to Chris from Audyssey in regards to crossover and other adjustments after calibration. He mentioned that all re-adjustments can be made EXCEPT for crossover. He said that crossover can be raised (as you do) but never lowered. Lowering seems to change Audyssey's filtering.


 Hi Jim, that's the first time I've ever heard anyone make that statement - low and behold it comes from the man himself. 


> For some reason my crossovers have ALWAYS been set high by Audyssey. Mains will be 200-250, surround might be in the 150 range, Wides in the 90 range, etc. For years I have tested ways to get them down even with the help of Chris from Audyssey but I have finally come to the conclusion that...My system sounds great. So, I no longer worry about it. My guess is the reason why is that they are in-ceiling speakers????? SpeakerCraft's high-end in-ceiling speakers but still in-ceiling.


 FWIW, I have ML Tickets in my wall (L/C/R) and ceiling for surrounds in our Family room. The woofers are only 5" but Audyssey sets wall crossover at 60 which I raise to 80 to reduce sound bleeding through the wall to the master bedroom (boy, I should've thought that one out better). You'll be interested in this: Audyssey sets the ceiling mount surround crossover to 100 Hz. These are the same as the wall mount ML Tickets. Go figure. 

-Paul


----------



## Kal Rubinson

bigdogaxis said:


> Hi Jim, that's the first time I've ever heard anyone make that statement - low and behold it comes from the man himself.


Old news. The reason is that Audyssey only EQs each speaker down to its detected rolloff frequency which is where it will set the crossover. If you choose a lower crossover, you will be using it in a range which is uncorrected.


----------



## bigdogaxis

Thanks Kal. I should clarify my comment that unless Jim misquoted Chris, I read the statement as_one may adjust anything - including measured speaker distance and levels_ - EXCEPT lowering crossovers. -Paul


----------



## AustinJerry

Kal Rubinson said:


> Two tenths of a *foot *is not a very big difference.


Of course it is two tenths of a foot, Kal, my mistake. But I stand by my original statement that one should not tinker with speaker distances after the calibration has completed. One should adjust the speaker (or MLP) position and re-run the calibration.


----------



## JimShaw

bigdogaxis

Do you play movies with 

Dynamic Volume
Dyn EQ

Off, on, a mixture of off and on??

I sit trying to discern any differences but so far, not able.

What say you?

I think I read from someone that with movies turn everything off
with music all on


m


----------



## Kal Rubinson

bigdogaxis said:


> Thanks Kal. I should clarify my comment that unless Jim misquoted Chris, I read the statement as_one may adjust anything - including measured speaker distance and levels_ - EXCEPT lowering crossovers. -Paul


Yes. One may adjust anything * to taste* EXCEPT lowering crossovers because none of the others encumber comparable penalties.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

AustinJerry said:


> Of course it is two tenths of a foot, Kal, my mistake. But I stand by my original statement that one should not tinker with speaker distances after the calibration has completed. One should adjust the speaker (or MLP) position and re-run the calibration.


Agreed.


----------



## bigdogaxis

Kal Rubinson said:


> Yes. One may adjust anything to taste EXCEPT lowering crossovers because none of the others encumber comparable penalties.


Got it. I figured any changes would encumber penalties, thus I only change speakers to small. IMHO, anything more would be counterproductive.


----------



## bigdogaxis

JimShaw said:


> bigdogaxis Do you play movies with Dynamic Volume Dyn EQ Off, on, a mixture of off and on?? I sit trying to discern any differences but so far, not able. What say you? I think I read from someone that with movies turn everything off with music all on m


 Jim - until yesterday, I engaged DynEQ for everything. I always use DynEQ for movies and TV. 

A subwoofer discussion I had with Sonnie, the HTS guy, caused me to rethink how I use DynEQ. Apparently, DynEQ _adds_ bass, which is good for cinema, maybe not for music. I plan to A/B several music tracks that I know inside & out to determine if I want DynEQ on or off for music.

I never use Dynamic Volume because I don't have to. I understand it's great for those in apartments or those who live with light sleepers. I think Dyn/Vol is to audio what mp3 is to hi-res.


----------



## omega6666

bigdogaxis said:


> Got it. I figured any changes would encumber penalties, thus I only change speakers to small. IMHO, anything more would be counterproductive.


There are a few things to take in account;

First is that Audyssey doesn’t set the crossover point. Audyssey measures the roll-off point of the satellite speakers, and only corrects above that point for the satellites. Also Audyssey doesn’t set speakers to large or small. Audyssey simply passes all this information to the receiver, and the manufacturer decides what to do with this info. Mostly crossover point is set at the lowest possible point where corrections are made, and speakers are set to large when roll-off point is low enough (40Hz?).

Another thing to take in account is that the subwoofer gets a higher filter resolution (for MultEQ XT and MultiEQ), than the satellite EQ-ing, so it’s better not to choose the lowest cross-over point perse. But simply choosing a very high cross-over point is not the best idea either, since frequencies above 80 Hz are starting to become more and more directional.

So this is why Audyssey advices to start with 80Hz as a crossover point, but not lower than the measured roll-off points of the satellites, and also to set speakers to small.


----------



## omega6666

bigdogaxis said:


> Apparently, DynEQ _adds_ bass, which is good for cinema, maybe not for music. I plan to A/B several music tracks that I know inside & out to determine if I want DynEQ on or off for music.


DynEQ adds lower and higher frequencies at lower volumes.
This is because of how our hearing works (Google psychoacoustics). When music, or movies are played loud, we experience more bass and treble. When we turn down the volume way down, we mostly hear the midrange, and the rest is lost. This is because evolution made it that we can sleep at night. Otherwise we would go mad of the sound of our blood pumping through our body.

DynEQ tries to counter this effect, but it needs to know at what volume the bass/treble experience (without dynEQ on) is just right, so it tries to keep that experience at every volume level. Cool, huh?

For most movies, this is simple. Reference level is when -30 dBFS band-limited pink noise produces 75 dB at the primary listening location (this is very loud). This is what Audyssey uses as a standard, and this gives the largest boost in both bass and treble.

Unfortunately more and more movies are put on Bluray or dvd at a lower reference level (check this interview with Audyssey), so for those it doesn't need that much bass/treble boost. Furthermore music is made at a lower reference level (non defined, but mostly around 60-65dB), since it must sound good at lower volume levels, for obvious reasons.

This is why I personally change the Dynamic EQ reference level at -10 dB, which works great for music and many movies. Also I prefer this lower boost even for the 75dB reference level movies, since dynamics (difference between dialogue and explosions) for those movies are more extreme, so I need to use a higher volume for those movies, to be able to hear the dialogue (I prefer not to use Dyn Volume). And I personally don't like the louder bass, when something loud, like an explosion comes along. But I know I'm an odd one out, on that one


----------



## bigdogaxis

Thanks omega6666, for your most excellent explanation of Audyssey's inner workings in layman's terms. Your points on DynEQ make sense for what I am experiencing. I look forward to testing your suggestions. My goal with audio is not loudness (read volume). 

I'm chasing a big, full, clear sound with excellent imaging. I don't need my chair to shake, I just want to have more presence of the kick drum in music and realistic audio in movies. I'm not concerned with TV audio as I'm aware it is compressed for transmission purposes. 

Thanks again for your help.


----------



## omega6666

No worries,

Another thing: if you have MultEQ XT*32*, it might be that there's no need to set crossovers to 80 Hz, if your receiver set it lower, since XT32 uses the same high resolution for both sub and satellite. Setting your satellites to small is always useful, though...


----------



## bigdogaxis

Hey guys, I want to post a follow up on my music experiment. First, I disengaged DynEQ which improved the frequency range. Then, I tried Audyssey Flat, but still no improvement. Next I tried Audyssey Bypass L/R and was not impressed. Finally, I just shut off Audyssey XT32 altogether.

:flex: Wow! The music came alive. Now I have the power, clarity, and kick I wanted.:boxer: I thought the imaging was good before, but now it's phenomenal. Seriously, this is what I expect a professional studio sounds like. :clap:

Well almost, the midrange is a bit much for my taste. I'm sure some room treatments would help. That will have to wait. I'm too busy rediscovering my music collection. Thanks for the pointers Sonnie and omega6666.


----------



## bigdogaxis

You ever feel like a dufus? onder: I turned on tone control dropped Treble -1 notch and whoop there it is.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Apologies for being absent awhile, was absorbed in another project, just don't juggle as well as I used to.



bigdogaxis said:


> Hi Tom, I agree subjectivity is best served cautiously. That's why reading through the Audyssey MultEQ FAQ Setup Guide seemed a bit pretentious. Once I saw the REW measurements of the mic position patterns, I had to hear it for myself.
> 
> Further to your point with regard to IC. Subjective or objective, that is the question. Like Jim, I have reference material I've used for years. Music imaging at 3" spacing is so immersive, I have to check the audio mode to ensure surround sound is not active. For instance, Don Henley's high hat in the Eagles' "Hotel California" is clearly situated to the right of center (stage left). The kick drum is centered, while the snare is slightly off center. The other toms and cymbals reflect the same positioning Don uses in his drum kit today.
> 
> Movie audio is quite different, almost acute. By that I mean the surround audio is more accurate in sound and location. It seems the sound stage is more tightly configured and no longer ambiguous. Again, no way to measure IC other than hearing things in a reference film for the first time.
> 
> Like a restaurant scene where offscreen dialogue is now discernible. Or like the scene from Master & Commander of the ensuing chaos of the ship's crew during the first attack. Everyone knows about the overhead effects in that scene, but now the dialog is palpable in my system whereas it was not before.
> 
> There you have my unscientific method of IC measurement. Echoic or not, if you're hearing something from reference material for the first time, is it subjective or objective? :huh:


I definitely agree with the need to get Image Clarity into the objective realm. The first step is discussing describable experiences that we can all experience similarly. Measurements will come. There is formal research going on in this area, but commonplace tools are a ways off.



omega6666 said:


> Yes, it must be the case that, once you repetitively hear the same thing the same way over and over again, while also paying attention to little details, that the echoic memory starts feeding other parts of the memory, that might not even be preserved for audio. That way a difference will become very obvious.
> 
> Still I think a graph with IC per frequency, or some sort of average measured IC value would be much preferred for sharing results on a forum. People tend to react more or less enthousiastically to the same results.
> Also buying a new audio product, or putting time and energy in changing your audio, can make your wanting to hear something change to thinking you actually hear it.
> 
> Sound localization depends on interaural time (phase) differences between the 2 ears with sounds below 800 hz. It depends on level (volume) differences between ears above 1600 hz, which means that for those frequencies the FR of left and right speakers must follow each other relatively. They may be too loud or too soft, but relatively they must be following the same slopes and peaks.
> In between 800 and 1600 hz, there is a transition of interaural time and level differences priority.
> 
> Also the lower (subwoofer) frequencies can't be localized, but I'm also sure the higher frequencies aren't ideal for localization, but I'm not sure where those frequencies start. Anyone ever tried to find a cricket by it's sound in their younger years?
> Higher frequencies also start cancelling or amplifying each other chaotically, especially in our rooms, which is why we apply octave smoothing with REW.
> 
> Is this measuring of IC already tried somewhere? Does anyone have any ideas on this?


Good description. I have only seen one attempt at charting IC, the tools involved were not at all clearcut and I never got it set up. I will see if I can find it again.



bigdogaxis said:


> I can't remember if Wayne stated the following in his guide. To me, the 3" spacing makes sense considering one's ears are roughly 6" apart and about 3" - 4" back of one's face.
> 
> I suppose the mic positioning is to EQ around one's head given the 3" rise for samples 3 & 4. Perhaps extending mic position 7 & 8 is to tame reflections whether outward for a single row or backward for a 2nd row.
> 
> So Wayne, do you or one of the sound experts have an opinion on IC measurement?
> Paul


The spacings came from head dimensions, repeatability of seating position, head movement while sitting, and experimentation. Also from balancing the goals of minimizing frequency response over some area and preserving IC while doing so.

As Tom stated so nicely, it is not a simple matter to measure as the nature of the measurement changes with frequency. Would love to see it somehow incorporated into REW or an offshoot some day, but that is only a dream right now, there is a lot to learn before that.

Part of what makes IC easier to remember and discuss is that it relates to vision and visual memory. Much of what we are discussing subjectively can be related to perceived physical location, size, distance, etc. _once high IC is achieved._ Measuring degree of clarity or coherence or something like that is the part we are trying to figure out, of course.

It is surprising how many who work with audio in a semi-serious way have not even experienced it, or believe it not to be attainable in a home environment.


----------



## AudiocRaver

JimShaw said:


> bigdogaxis
> 
> Do you play movies with
> 
> Dynamic Volume
> Dyn EQ
> 
> Off, on, a mixture of off and on??
> 
> I sit trying to discern any differences but so far, not able.
> 
> What say you?
> 
> I think I read from someone that with movies turn everything off
> with music all on
> 
> 
> m


Dynamic EQ can cause image location to move around. If Image Clarity is decent, I suggest leaving it off.


----------



## JimShaw

AudiocRaver said:


> Dynamic EQ can cause image location to move around. If Image Clarity is decent, I suggest leaving it off.


----------



## AustinJerry

AudiocRaver said:


> Dynamic EQ can cause image location to move around. If Image Clarity is decent, I suggest leaving it off.


I'm struggling with this whole Image Clarity thing. I don't see that anyone has attempted to describe in objective terms what IC is. And what do you mean that DEQ can cause the image to "move around"?

It would be useful if we were to adopt several music and/or movie sources, with reference to specific passages, to hear what people mean. I have had an Audyssey AVR for several years and have never experienced any effect DEQ has on the sound stage. Perhaps I don't know what to listen for, which is why I am asking someone to suggest a test.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Jerry, I agree we need to give the topic as much objective clarity as possible.

Here is a thread where there has been discussion on the topic, although we are far from settling on definitions.

I will post names of a couple of favorite test tracks and specifically what I hear and where, so we can have more specific examples to compare.

On DEQ, there are two tracks where I heard image movement while evaluating his MartinLogan Montis recently. I will run down specific track times and info and post those specifics as well.


----------



## bigdogaxis

I found something that may contribute to the imaging and clarity discussion. http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm
It's a pretty cool chart showing the audio frequency range of various instruments, but WAIT...there's more. Apparently imaging, clarity, and other acoustical adjectives are tied to actual frequencies.


----------



## bigdogaxis

:surrender: Ok, I admit it. I WAS WRONG! :unbelievable: 

A few posts ago, I made a fool of myself claiming Audyssey Off must be akin to studio blah, blah, blah, nonsense and more nonsense. Omega6666 (Tom) might be on to something with this psycho-auditory stuff. :scratchchin: 

Like in football when you see the RB stretch the ball out for a touchdown but replay shows the runner's elbow was on the ground; after further review, I simply heard a difference in FR. Having listened to a few recordings, I thought I solved my problem. _Hotel California_ (96/24) was amazing. Norah Jones' _Come Away With Me_ (96/24) was fantastic. That's when I posted my nonsense. It wasn't until Blues Travelers album _Four_ (44.1/16) that I realized something was muted - the bongos. What to do? :dontknow: 

I adjusted Tone, but nothing. I engaged Audyssey XT32, then Audyssey Flat. Well the bongos were back, but Bass was lifeless and the harmonica was killing me. :scared: While digging through the 4311 manual, I found something I had seen long ago...Audyssey ManualEQ. I copied the Flat curve, boosted the 63Hz +2dB, 125Hz +1dB settings and dropped 1kHz/2kHz/4kHz 1 - 2 dB to kill the shrill. Then I adjusted 8kHz/16kHz for balance. 

The result: I am close to the Bass response I want and midrange is tolerable. :nerd: Not scientific by any means, but it will do for now while I configure my laptop with this USB mic for REW.  Only then, will we really know what's going on and put an end to my lunacy.:coocoo: Well...maybe. :dumbcrazy:


----------



## primetimeguy

bigdogaxis said:


> While digging through the 4311 manual, I found something I had seen long ago...Audyssey ManualEQ. I copied the Flat curve, boosted the 63Hz +2dB, 125Hz +1dB settings and dropped 1kHz/2kHz/4kHz 1 - 2 dB to kill the shrill. Then I adjusted 8kHz/16kHz for balance.


Keep in mind the Audyssey ManualEQ isn't really what it seems. It essentially is Audyssey Off and gives you the option of Manual EQ. It has nothing to do with Audyssey.


----------



## AudiocRaver

bigdogaxis said:


> :surrender: Ok, I admit it. I WAS WRONG! :unbelievable:
> 
> A few posts ago, I made a fool of myself claiming Audyssey Off must be akin to studio blah, blah, blah, nonsense and more nonsense. Omega6666 (Tom) might be on to something with this psycho-auditory stuff. :scratchchin:
> 
> Like in football when you see the RB stretch the ball out for a touchdown but replay shows the runner's elbow was on the ground; after further review, I simply heard a difference in FR. Having listened to a few recordings, I thought I solved my problem. _Hotel California_ (96/24) was amazing. Norah Jones' _Come Away With Me_ (96/24) was fantastic. That's when I posted my nonsense. It wasn't until Blues Travelers album _Four_ (44.1/16) that I realized something was muted - the bongos. What to do? :dontknow:
> 
> I adjusted Tone, but nothing. I engaged Audyssey XT32, then Audyssey Flat. Well the bongos were back, but Bass was lifeless and the harmonica was killing me. :scared: While digging through the 4311 manual, I found something I had seen long ago...Audyssey ManualEQ. I copied the Flat curve, boosted the 63Hz +2dB, 125Hz +1dB settings and dropped 1kHz/2kHz/4kHz 1 - 2 dB to kill the shrill. Then I adjusted 8kHz/16kHz for balance.
> 
> The result: I am close to the Bass response I want and midrange is tolerable. :nerd: Not scientific by any means, but it will do for now while I configure my laptop with this USB mic for REW.  Only then, will we really know what's going on and put an end to my lunacy.:coocoo: Well...maybe. :dumbcrazy:


As primetimeguy says, this is graphic EQ applied manually by ear. Nothing wrong with it, you can get terrific results that way, but it might be interesting to see a plot of the result with REW, just to be sure it is doing what you think it is.


----------



## bigdogaxis

:hissyfit: Seriously!?! Not cool, Denon.


----------



## omega6666

bigdogaxis said:


> :hissyfit: Seriously!?! Not cool, Denon.


Well, if your AVR can handle the pro installer kit, you'll be able to set your own target curve;








It might be just the thing for you. I believe it costs somewhere around 500 dollars, though, but judging from your avatar and your home system, that shouldn't be much of an issue


----------



## bigdogaxis

:rofl: Tom, you kill me. That car was fun but impractical. It belonged to my business neighbor. He was trying to get me to buy it. He says, "Let me take a picture of you to show your wife, she'll love it" You should've seen me in that thing. I was like "fat guy in a little coat" from _Tommy Boy._ 

So I text her the photo, joking 'How do you like my new car?' She was furious! :rofl2: Classic prank. Well, she still hates that photo so I use it everywhere.

Back on topic. After all of my silliness, forever documented in the annals of Home Theater Shack posts, I committed to capturing REW data for us all to enjoy. A pro kit may very well be in my future if the data supports it.


----------



## omega6666

Spouses tend to know each others weak spots like nothing else  ...and somehow those spots just seem to get weaker and weaker.

REW is a great piece of software. My wife and kinds don't seem to agree, though. "Can you all please be quiet for another moment, please" (well, in dutch, then...). The wife: "When will this calibration thing ever be done with?".

She's not ready for the real answer yet...


----------



## omega6666

AudiocRaver said:


> Dynamic EQ can cause image location to move around. If Image Clarity is decent, I suggest leaving it off.


This, together with the louder surrounds, made me, reluctantly, turn off Dynamic EQ.
Somehow changing the settings in Denon's 'tone control' don't work (was greyed out with DynEQ on, but now I can change the setting, it still had no effect), so I raised the treble, by swapping the 'Audyssey' curve for the 'Audyssey flat' curve, and turned up the volume in the subs, and used my Behringer Feedback destroyer to create a nice hard knee house curve.
I rarely turn up the volume high, since we have both neighbours and kids 

Still I wished those surrounds weren't turned up so loud with DynEQ...


----------



## primetimeguy

Well, you could just simply turn down the surrounds a couple dB.  

I have found that the surrounds are boosted approx 1db for each 5db you are below reference. I typically listen close to - 10 so have them turned down 2db.


----------



## omega6666

Yes, I've thought about that, but I don't like how the surrounds still variate in volume. Having a fixed equalization/surround volume instead of a dynamic EQ with faulty dynamic surrounds, feels 'less wrong'.


----------



## primetimeguy

omega6666 said:


> Yes, I've thought about that, but I don't like how the surrounds still variate in volume. Having a fixed equalization/surround volume instead of a dynamic EQ with faulty dynamic surrounds, feels 'less wrong'.


Once you account for the boost based on reference level they are no more variate than any other speaker.

No "more wrong" than if the overall sound is too loud and you turn down your volume.


----------



## omega6666

In DynEQ mode, the surrounds volume lowers less than the fronts, when turning down the dial, right?


----------



## primetimeguy

omega6666 said:


> In DynEQ mode, the surrounds volume lowers less than the fronts, when turning down the dial, right?


Yes. And I think the concept of needing the surrounds boosted at lower levels is needed to maintain your "surround envelope", but DynEQ is just too aggressive.

Of if you reduce your surround trims based on your typical listening level, if you are within a few db of that there isn't much difference. But if you decide to listen 15db from typical now maybe you don't like the front/back balance any more.


----------



## omega6666

You have a point there. I'm giving it a try, see if I like it. The surround boost at my listening level sound more like an 5-6 dB boost, though. I'll measure a pink noise dB difference at my normal listening level and sitting location.

[edit:] There was a 7 dB difference in the surrounds, at my normal listening level, when comparing DynEQ on vs off, but, like you said, they should be raised a bit at lower volumes, which is what pushed me over to trying this. So I chose -5 dB for the surrounds, which seems to be pretty good, but I need to give it some listening time.
I have not experienced any wavering imaging yet, so hopefully I won't experience those...

Thanks for the constructive discussion


----------



## primetimeguy

Curious what your typical listening level is. My measurements showed about a 1db boost for each 5db from reference. So if you measured 7db difference that would be around -35db for my guess, maybe closer to - 30 I bet.


----------



## omega6666

I've adjusted reference level to -10 dB. I normally listen around -30 dB, so shouldn't that raise the surrounds with only 4 dB? SL and SR raised around 5 dB, SB around 8 dB.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Wandering images with Dynamic EQ:

There are two tracks that I heard this happen on recently. The first is Cassandra Wilson's _Strange Fruit,_ on her vocals. Toward the end of a vocal phrase, as her voice changes volume, the location of her voice moves from left of center of the soundstage toward the center of the soundstage. On one phrase, I heard her voice come from a different spot in the soundstage for each noted she sang. It was a slight defect, but easily distinguishable.

The other track was _The World's Green Laughter_ by the B-52s. There is a nonsense vocalization by a male singer from the right side of the soundstage. With Dynamic EQ, it bounces back and forth in that area of the soundstage. Without Dynamic EQ, the voice comes from a steady spot.

It will probably not be immediately, but I will try to come up with some non-copyrighted samples that show this effect, and that can be used as Image Clarity references. Then they can be uploaded for all to use freely.


----------



## omega6666

I was wondering; DynEQ only looks at the difference of the volume setting and reference level, right? And then it uses one static equalization for that specific volume setting?

Or is there actually something dynamic going on at the same volume setting, that could explain the changes of IC?

AudiocRaver, do the wandering sound localization issues variate together with volume variation, or maybe with frequency variation, or does it seem completely random?


----------



## AudiocRaver

According to Audyssey, "Audyssey Dynamic EQ™ adjusts the frequency response and surround volume levels moment-by-moment." That would seem to account for the wandering effect. We were in 2.0 mode, music through L & R mains only.

It doesn't happen on every track. But it happened on _the first track_ (Cassandra Wilson - _Strange Fruit_) I listened to after an Audyssey MultEQ setup. We had forgotten to turn DEQ off. With it turned off, everything was fine, no wandering. We then confirmed it with a blind A-B test.

The effect seems to mainly follow volume variation.

BTW, I am only reporting what I heard and my own choice not to use it for music. Many users are happy with it. If one's imaging is not very sharp, they would never notice it. This is all personal preference stuff.


----------



## omega6666

AudiocRaver said:


> According to Audyssey, "Audyssey Dynamic EQ™ adjusts the frequency response and surround volume levels moment-by-moment." That would seem to account for the wandering effect.


I guess, to be able to realize the constant bass response, tonal balance and surround impression at lower volumes, compared to reference level, this must be neccesary. I'd prefer that this aspect would have been implemented in Dynamic volume, though. Then I would've been able to turn it off. 



AudiocRaver said:


> It doesn't happen on every track. But it happened on _the first track_ (Cassandra Wilson - _Strange Fruit_) I listened to after an Audyssey MultEQ setup. We had forgotten to turn DEQ off. With it turned off, everything was fine, no wandering. We then confirmed it with a blind A-B test.
> 
> The effect seems to mainly follow volume variation.


So it's probably so that lower volume high notes are boosted more than higher volume high notes, because of this dynamic aspect within the same volume setting, but they are not equally boosted in all speakers, because all speakers get their own equalization curve.


----------



## primetimeguy

omega6666 said:


> I've adjusted reference level to -10 dB. I normally listen around -30 dB, so shouldn't that raise the surrounds with only 4 dB? SL and SR raised around 5 dB, SB around 8 dB.


30/5 = 6db 

Interesting you find that big of a difference between side and rear, I don't recall that. You using true 7.1 tones with no processing like PLIIx?


----------



## omega6666

primetimeguy said:


> 30/5 = 6db
> 
> Interesting you find that big of a difference between side and rear, I don't recall that. You using true 7.1 tones with no processing like PLIIx?


Yes, but (30-10)/5 = 4dB, since I've used an adjusted reference level of -10 dB.

I measured the difference of a PLIIx pink noise surround test, between DynEQ on and off, since I find the surround raise to be the most bothering with music in PLIIx music mode, which I personally prefer.
Also, I presume DynEQ adjusts after the Dolbly PLIIx processing and since dB's are in a log scale already, there's no reason why there should be a difference in outcome.

The reason why surrounds are raised more with lower volumes, probably has something to do with sounds being blocked by your own auricles or even your head. With that in mind, it's logical that SL and SR should be boosted less than the SB, I guess.


----------



## primetimeguy

omega6666 said:


> Yes, but (30-10)/5 = 4dB, since I've used an adjusted reference level of -10 dB.
> 
> I measured the difference of a PLIIx pink noise surround test, between DynEQ on and off, since I find the surround raise to be the most bothering with music in PLIIx music mode, which I personally prefer.
> Also, I presume DynEQ adjusts after the Dolbly PLIIx processing and since dB's are in a log scale already, there's no reason why there should be a difference in outcome.
> 
> The reason why surrounds are raised more with lower volumes, probably has something to do with sounds being blocked by your own auricles or even your head. With that in mind, it's logical that SL and SR should be boosted less than the SB, I guess.


Ah, yes, forgot about your RLO. Hmmm.

Your point about the rear surrounds being louder is interesting because I always felt that the loudness bothered be the most behind me rather than the sides, but never measured the back channels, just the sides. May have to give that a try this weekend.

The music you listen too in PLIIx Music, is it 2 channel or multichannel? Since music doesn't adhere to the film standards I often find that the surrounds are already much louder. I sometimes use RLO of 10db when listening to concert discs for that reason.


----------



## omega6666

Mostly 2 channels, I only have a few 5.1 albums. When you say PLIIx for multichannel, you mean where the SB is derived from the SL&SR with PLIIx, right?

I use different presets for movies and music, but I actually prefer -10dB RLO for both, although not many would agree with that for movies, I guess. Music is mostly referenced somewhere around 60-65dB, and most movies are still at 75 dB (although more and more (~25%) theatrical mixes are remixed to near-field for home-use on Blu-ray), but since I need to get closer to reference level for those 75 dB movies anyways, to be able to follow dialogue, I like to suppress those lows a bit, when explosive dynamics kick in :hsd: (or else my wife punches me on the shoulder again).


----------



## primetimeguy

omega6666 said:


> Mostly 2 channels, I only have a few 5.1 albums. When you say PLIIx for multichannel, you mean where the SB is derived from the SL&SR with PLIIx, right?
> .


Yes


----------



## bigdogaxis

*Follow up on my quest to find the kick drum in music.* 
SPOILER ALERT: Audyssey XT32 is not the problem, but you guys probably already suspected that. 

I took some measurements with REW. I started with the 2 MartinLogan Depth subs. 

SW1 before/after noted as Raw/Tuned: 

Tuned is a bit misleading as I only adjusted volume and the 25Hz knob trying to balance the 10-50Hz range. 

Then I turned my attention to SW2. The graph was nasty. I made so many measurements that I accidentally deleted the initial measurement. Nothing I did changed the SW2 response: relocating, adjusting levels. Reducing volume was the only way to mitigate the rapid descent from the 20Hz peak to the 60Hz dip. Moving on to measuring the subs together. 

I tested every sub control available on the subs to match them. It turned out that phase was causing uncontrollable peaks and valleys between the subs. Setting SW1 phase to 270 deg and SW2 phase to 0 deg provided the best result.


So part of the problem is addressed. On to the MartinLogan Source L/R speakers. You may remember I _discovered_ Audyssey ManualEQ which essentially is a graphic EQ as a few of my learned colleagues pointed out. ManualEQ copies the Audyssey Flat curve. All I did was adjust out what I perceived as harsh midrange. AudiocRaver expressed an interest in a REW measurement of the ManualEQ. Your wish is my command: 

FR of each speaker compared to both together 


FR of L/R with subs


Comparison of 2.0 and 2.2


Finally, I wanted to see what DynEQ does to audio 


This was my first time using REW, so all measurements were taken with the mic pointed to the ceiling. I connected the umm-6 USB mic to my laptop to Denon4311 front auxiliary via HDMI. Maybe this is why I struggled with isolating L/R channels. More puzzling is how to configure volume for 75dB goal when REW warns volume is too low. 

The family made me stop running sweeps, but I had to run Audyssey after I messed with everything. Audyssey wanted me to raise the SW volume for calibration. I did not as I was afraid the subs would be out of control again. After Audyssey calibration, I adjusted the sub 1+2 level to my preference ensure the balance achieved with REW remained unaltered.

What resulted was a soundstage with depth, imaging, and clarity I've only experienced at live concerts. Every instrument was in its rightful place including lead and backing vocals. I've always loved the way Joe Walsh and Don Felder trade guitar riffs in _Life in the Fast Lane_. This time I heard the picks hitting strings as well as the riffs each played under the other's solo. Movies no longer have the bombastic booming. A handgun sounds like a handgun, as does a grenade launcher, machine gun, cannon, and thruster. Better yet, an explosion no longer sounds like a rumbling earthquake. 

After all of my searching for the kick drum in music, I found it was being canceled out by the dueling subs. As a result, I use Audyssey XT32 Flat for music and Audyssey XT32 with DynEQ for movies. 

I look forward to your comments and suggestions. 
-Paul


----------



## primetimeguy

bigdogaxis, 

Just trying to follow along with your last post and I have some questions and comments.

1) Your first chart showing before/after sub1 doesn't look like much changed other than dropping level 8-10db. And do you intentionally have a house curve with 20hz 10db louder than 80hz?

2) Your plot with the fronts plus subs looks like all the bass below 80hz is gone. 60hz is 15db lower than 80hz.

3) Your DynEQ plots don't make sense to me. The red (DynEQ off) and blue (DynEQ on) are the same. Are those measurements at reference level, ie 0db on your volume dial?


----------



## bigdogaxis

primetimeguy said:


> 1) Your first chart showing before/after sub1 doesn't look like much changed other than dropping level 8-10db. And do you intentionally have a house curve with 20hz 10db louder than 80hz?


Primetime - Thanks for your input. _Keep in mind this was my first go with REW._ You're right about the chart. I dropped dB trying to flatten the curve - which is about as flat as the Texas Hill Country. The 20Hz hump reverberates throughout the house. Apparently, the other inhabitants do not appreciate the depths to which my subs will reach. 

As for the House Curve, I saw a tab for it under Preferences but I did not have time to figure it out before the kids came home from school. I read the tab information, but I probably need a more in-depth primer to learn how to get/create one. 

If you have a quick way for me to get a house curve, I will gladly do it. If not, then point me in the direction and I will research. A/V is my passion. I am happy to spend hours gaining knowledge on the subject. 



> 2) Your plot with the fronts plus subs looks like all the bass below 80hz is gone. 60hz is 15db lower than 80hz.


Correct again. This has troubled me all along. This plot compares the Music 2.2 curve against the SW Combined curve. It does not make sense to me that the 2.2 curve and SWc meet at 80dB/54Hz. 
 
Perhaps the solution is to increase SW level causing gain at 20Hz gain. As I am typing this, I remember the L/R speakers are set to small, crossover is 60Hz in the 4311's 2Ch setting. The subs are set to LFE+Main for 2ch only. Will the subs still play if I change the mains to Large? 



> 3) Your DynEQ plots don't make sense to me. The red (DynEQ off) and blue (DynEQ on) are the same. Are those measurements at reference level, ie 0db on your volume dial?


There's been a lot of discussion on DynEQ, so I wanted to measure A/B sweeps at reference against a -10dB offset. IIRC, DynEQ should be idle at reference which appears to be the case based on the plots. 

The offset measures -10dB between 150Hz and 8kHz. Then it starts compressing -9dB/150Hz, -7dB/100Hz, -6dB/60Hz and below; while 10kHz-20kHz is at -8dB. I just wanted to see it for myself and thought I would share my findings.


----------



## primetimeguy

Until you get everything else figured out, I would say forget about the house curve. That is what DynEQ gives you when you enable it anyway.

Your calibration level in REW must be off then because at reference level you would louder levels pushing 105db. But again, not a huge issue for now.

I would focus on turning Audyssey off and measure just one sub at a level in the ballpark of 75-80db. Move it around the room if possible to where it gives you the flattest response. Then add in the second sub and again move it around until you get the best combined response. Then tweak the phase knob on one of them to see if you can improve it even more.

Once all that is done run Audyssey and see how the final plot comes out.


----------



## bigdogaxis

Will do, thanks.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Getting subwoofer(s) and mains to mesh well at crossover is quite an art.

Individual SW positioning for smooth response comes first. Watch distance from walls, even which direction the SW driver is aimed can make a big difference.

With all subs together, sometimes adjusting the sub distance settings in the AVR is the best fine-tuning control available. Start by getting SW1 & SW2 meshing well by adjusting phase & distance settings. Then adjust their delays TOGETHER - still without MultEQ - to get a good crossover transition between subs with L Main, which hopefully will also give a good crossover transition between subs and R Main - if not, you almost have to start over with SW positioning. SW expert Mark Seaton (Seaton Sound) likes to focus on a good crossover transition with subs and Center, which then _usually_ translates well to L & R Mains.

With the above accomplished, make a note of SW distance settings, run MultEQ, then - remembering that your SW distance settings will have been changed - manually change them back to your "good" values. It is OK to change SW distance values at this point, but not distance for mains or surrounds (would destroy any soundstage / Image Clarity). Always check the Mains & C & Surrounds distance settings - once in a great while MultEQ gives a crazy value for one of them - if so, you just have to run it over again.

That is the best _fairly simple_ process I know of - there are experienced sub tuners who might give other approaches &/or have better detailed processes to suggest.


----------



## AudiocRaver

bigdogaxis said:


> There's been a lot of discussion on DynEQ, so I wanted to measure A/B sweeps at reference against a -10dB offset. IIRC, DynEQ should be idle at reference which appears to be the case based on the plots.
> 
> The offset measures -10dB between 150Hz and 8kHz. Then it starts compressing -9dB/150Hz, -7dB/100Hz, -6dB/60Hz and below; while 10kHz-20kHz is at -8dB. I just wanted to see it for myself and thought I would share my findings.


Your curves show very well the difference DynEQ can make. It might respond a _little_ differently to full range pink noise vs. a sweep.


----------



## bigdogaxis

AudiocRaver said:


> Getting subwoofer(s) and mains to mesh well at crossover is quite an art.
> 
> Individual SW positioning for smooth response comes first. Watch distance from walls, even which direction the SW driver is aimed can make a big difference.


This sub design has three drivers 120 deg apart inside the cabinet. SW location is 3'6" from side wall, 2'6" from front wall on either side. Room width is 13'9" x 18'2" in length. I can go about 5' from side wall, but only 3' from front wall due to seating. 

L/R location is 2'6" from side wall, 2'4" from front wall. I can go 3' from front wall, but must stay 2'6" from side wall due to screen. 


> With all subs together, sometimes adjusting the sub distance settings in the AVR is the best fine-tuning control available. Start by getting SW1 & SW2 meshing well by adjusting phase & distance settings.


To confirm, you are talking about SW phase setting and AVR distance setting. What frequency range am I targeting, 40Hz - 80 Hz at 75dB across the curve average? 


> Then adjust their delays TOGETHER - still without MultEQ - to get a good crossover transition between subs with L Main, which hopefully will also give a good crossover transition between subs and R Main - if not, you almost have to start over with SW positioning.


Delays? Is this done with distance, level, or a combination?


> SW expert Mark Seaton (Seaton Sound) likes to focus on a good crossover transition with subs and Center, which then _usually_ translates well to L & R Mains.


How does one isolate a channel without unplugging the other leads? I isolated a channel using the AVR pink noise, but not the REW sweep. 


> With the above accomplished, make a note of SW distance settings, run MultEQ, then - remembering that your SW distance settings will have been changed - manually change them back to your "good" values. It is OK to change SW distance values at this point, but not distance for mains or surrounds (would destroy any soundstage / Image Clarity). Always check the Mains & C & Surrounds distance settings - once in a great while MultEQ gives a crazy value for one of them - if so, you just have to run it over again.
> 
> That is the best _fairly simple_ process I know of - there are experienced sub tuners who might give other approaches &/or have better detailed processes to suggest.


This sounds like the easy part.  Thanks for your help.


----------



## AudiocRaver

bigdogaxis said:


> To confirm, you are talking about SW phase setting and AVR distance setting. What frequency range am I targeting, 40Hz - 80 Hz at 75dB across the curve average?


Yes. And yes, as smooth as you can get it, free of major dips or huge peaks.



> Delays? Is this done with distance, level, or a combination? How does one isolate a channel without unplugging the other leads? I isolated a channel using the AVR pink noise, but not the REW sweep.
> This sounds like the easy part.  Thanks for your help.


AVR distance. REW allows you to select L or R output on the Properties page. Or you set it up with an audio selector switch in reverse.


----------



## workingclass

Could someone direct me to a post on how to download my Audyssey results to my Macbook..I did a forum search w/o any luck
Thanks!


----------



## primetimeguy

workingclass said:


> Could someone direct me to a post on how to download my Audyssey results to my Macbook..I did a forum search w/o any luck
> Thanks!


There is nothing you can download, everything is kept in the receiver and no access to the settings.


----------



## workingclass

primetimeguy said:


> There is nothing you can download, everything is kept in the receiver and no access to the settings.


Oh Ok thanks primetimeguy


----------



## primetimeguy

workingclass said:


> Oh Ok thanks primetimeguy


Unless you get a Pro capable receiver and purchase the Pro Kit. Then you get a better view into what is happening.


----------



## workingclass

primetimeguy said:


> Unless you get a Pro capable receiver and purchase the Pro Kit. Then you get a better view into what is happening.


cool thanks...I think before I jump on that bus, I need to fully know how to use XT32 and REW..Then maybe try pro.


----------



## bigdogaxis

Wayne, I read your review on Sonnie's new Montis loudspeakers. Would you elaborate on the toe-in and how it expanded the soundstage as well as improved IC? It would be good to hear more about how adding the MultEQ effect influenced the sound, too. 
-Paul


----------



## mvision7m

Does anyone know of a relatively inexpensive expandable mic boom stand and 1/4"-20 attachment for the Audyssey mic?


----------



## JimShaw

mvision7m said:


> Does anyone know of a relatively inexpensive expandable mic boom stand and 1/4"-20 attachment for the Audyssey mic?


Yes. I purchased one from www.Sweetwater.com a few months ago and it was very nice. It cost me about $24


----------



## Audiohallick

mvision7m said:


> Does anyone know of a relatively inexpensive expandable mic boom stand and 1/4"-20 attachment for the Audyssey mic?


This is what I used. Currently 22.69

Ravelli APLT2 50" Light Weight Aluminum Tripod with Bag
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004ZGN6MY/ref=oh_details_o03_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## JimShaw

Audiohallick said:


> This is what I used. Currently 22.69
> 
> Ravelli APLT2 50" Light Weight Aluminum Tripod with Bag
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004ZGN6MY/ref=oh_details_o03_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


Looks good but does it have a boom which I find necessary


----------



## mvision7m

JimShaw said:


> Yes. I purchased one from www.Sweetwater.com a few months ago and it was very nice. It cost me about $24


Awesome. Can you share the model # and did you have to buy an adaptor for the Audyssey mic or does the mic have an attachment that fits the 1/4" screw hole on the bottom of the Audyssey mic. 

Thanks again.


----------



## mvision7m

Audiohallick said:


> This is what I used. Currently 22.69 Ravelli APLT2 50" Light Weight Aluminum Tripod with Bag http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004ZGN6MY/ref=oh_details_o03_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


Thanks for the reply. 

I actually have a standard camera tripod/monopod combo but a height adjustable stand with an expandable boom would work much better for the Audyssey mic and auto calibration. My current tripod doesn't stand low enough at its lowest height when on the sofa cushion, the mic itself ends up above ear height. And, I have to fuss around putting the monopod back into the tripod to get all eight positions measured. With an adjustable boom I can set one height and move to each spot much easier without having to measure each of them to ensure that the measurements are done at the exact same heights. 

I appreciate the info though.


----------



## JimShaw

mvision7m said:


> Awesome. Can you share the model # and did you have to buy an adaptor for the Audyssey mic or does the mic have an attachment that fits the 1/4" screw hole on the bottom of the Audyssey mic.
> 
> Thanks again.


Here is the boom I purchased. It is quality. Yes, I did have to purchase an attachment. I didn't when I first purchased and then had to re-order the attachment. I don't remember the code for the attachment but I do remember that is was not that much $$

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MicStdFBoomL/


----------



## tonyvdb

You can get boom stands like that at any music store or place that sells band gear you dont need to buy them on line and the price is the same and less hassle.


----------



## Audiohallick

JimShaw said:


> Look good but does it have a boom which I find necessary


Sorry no boom.


----------



## JimShaw

tonyvdb said:


> You can get boom stands like that at any music store or place that sells band gear you dont need to buy them on line and the price is the same and less hassle.


Sweetwater sends shipping and tax free where as if I had purchased at a store, there would have been tax. Plus, I could not find a store in my area that had them, especially an inexpensive one


----------



## mvision7m

Thanks for all the input gents. Very much appreciated. Will stop at local music store tomorrow to see if they have what I need at close to online prices etc.


----------



## bigdogaxis

I use the heavy base boom stand more often because I have a hard time fitting the tripod base in tight spaces.


----------



## AudiocRaver

bigdogaxis said:


> Wayne, I read your review on Sonnie's new Montis loudspeakers. Would you elaborate on the toe-in and how it expanded the soundstage as well as improved IC? It would be good to hear more about how adding the MultEQ effect influenced the sound, too.
> -Paul


What is interesting about dipoles like the MartiLogan's electrostatic is the way one can use the rear wave from the panel constructively to generate a certain kind of soundstage with high Image Clarity. The effect is not for everyone, but can be very engaging. I enjoy a setup where the rear wave gets to the listener about 8 mS after the front wave, the listener is well off the speaker axis, and Audyssey MultEQ is used to flatten the frequency response. One of these days I hope to document more detail about our setup experiences with the Martin-Logan Montis and ESL.


----------



## AudiocRaver

mvision7m said:


> Does anyone know of a relatively inexpensive expandable mic boom stand and 1/4"-20 attachment for the Audyssey mic?


One of these and one of these plus optionally one of these allows a versatile way of mounting an Audyssey setup mic on a regular mic/boom stand.


----------



## JimShaw

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/CameraAdapt/

Attach the above to this...










http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MicStdFBoomL/

and you are all done


m


----------



## mvision7m

Great stuff fellas. All great options. Many thanks.


----------



## bigdogaxis

I really like this because it holds the Audyssey mic as well as the REW mic.


----------



## AudiocRaver

JimShaw said:


> http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/CameraAdapt/
> 
> Attach the above to this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MicStdFBoomL/
> 
> and you are all done
> 
> 
> m




Cool.:sn:


----------



## mvision7m

JimShaw said:


> http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/CameraAdapt/ Attach the above to this... http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MicStdFBoomL/ and you are all done m


Picked both of these up at my local music/instrument store. Stand same price as sweetwater and the attachment for the Audyssey mike was $2 less than sweetwater's. 

I appreciate everyone's suggestions. Thanks.


----------



## JimShaw

mvision7m said:


> Picked both of these up at my local music/instrument store. Stand same price as sweetwater and the attachment for the Audyssey mike was $2 less than sweetwater's.
> 
> I appreciate everyone's suggestions. Thanks.


Excellent


----------



## mvision7m

Ok. After previously running Audyssey, my front main speakers consistently kept showing a distance of 9.7' for the LEFT and 9.6' for the RIGHT and I had been adjusting them for stereo playback in pure direct mode. As a matter of fact, all speaker distances are very consistent after each run of Audyssey. I read somewhere that it's pretty important to have your front main speakers at the exact same distance from the mic so that Audyssey registers them at equal distances. The implication is that there some improvement to be had in surround sound and/or overall sound quality when those distances are identical. 

So, in an attempt to get my main speakers a matching distance away from the main listening seat and to get Audyssey to register them as 9.6' LEFT to match the 9.6' RIGHT, I adjusted the left speaker toward the main seat by and tenth of an inch and not only does that bring stereo music even more into focus in pure direct mode etc., but I thought I'd now have perfect 9.6' L and 9.6' R positioning of my front main speakers. 

After re-running Audyssey again today using my newly acquired mic stand with 30" boom and Audyssey (camera) mount, the left speaker shows a perfect 9.6' (exactly as intended) but now the right speaker, which I didn't move at all or even touch, shows up as 9.3'. What the what!? Where's that consistency I was relying on? Hahaha. How the did the front right speaker come up with a different distance than it has every other time before? 

Anyone with a similar experience or with any ideas? Mic placement? I placed the mic in approximately the exact same 1st position that I have in the past. 

For Audiocravr, your 101 diagram, I assumed that the bottom most horizontal plane of the diagram is the back of the sofa/couch. Is it the other way around or did I assume correctly. Thanks again. 

Many thanks to everyone.


----------



## primetimeguy

Well, if you move the mic only a tenth of an inch you will get different results, so the mic can't be approximately in the same position.


----------



## mvision7m

primetimeguy said:


> Well, if you move the mic only a tenth of an inch you will get different results, so the mic can't be approximately in the same position.


Figured it was likely mic positioning but my question arose from the fact that until today, my results have been very consistent from the same PLP point and that right speaker consistently came up as 9.6'. Today suddenly it's 9.3'. Maybe just an anomaly. I'll try again later this week. 

Thanks for the input.


----------



## bigdogaxis

mvision7m said:


> So, in an attempt to get my main speakers a matching distance away from the main listening seat and to get Audyssey to register them as 9.6' LEFT to match the 9.6' RIGHT, I adjusted the left speaker toward the main seat by and tenth of an inch and not only does that bring stereo music even more into focus in pure direct mode etc., but I thought I'd now have perfect 9.6' L and 9.6' R positioning of my front main speakers. After re-running Audyssey again today using my newly acquired mic stand with 30" boom and Audyssey (camera) mount, the left speaker shows a perfect 9.6' (exactly as intended) but now the right speaker, which I didn't move at all or even touch, shows up as 9.3'.


Welcome to Audyssey or should I say 'Odyssey?'  Good luck getting perfect distance results. I mean 0.1" is tough to dial-in without precision equipment. Just aligning the pitch and roll of the Audyssey mic is enough to drive one mad. :gah: 

Then again...I am entertaining the idea of incorporating laser beams to ensure mic placement consistency. :cunning:


----------



## lcaillo

There will always be variance in the polar response of microphones, and these mics are surely not the most precise. When you get to the point where the measuring instrument has variablity greater than your ability to position it, you can't gaine much more. Then there are variables like speaker response variance and different room effects, speaker placement, etc. It will never be that accurate, nor precise.


----------



## mvision7m

You guys are pretty right on I suppose, not much I can do to really nail it perfectly as far as Audyssey goes. 

It's just strange that all my previous runs resulted in consistent distances and even the last run resulted in the same distances for every other speaker except the left (which I moved up a 10th" so I expected a different result) and the right (which I didn't touch but showed different by three 10ths) main speakers. Odd. 

I guess there are just some variables that can't always be accounted for including small inaccuracies in the mic itself. 

Thanks gents.


----------



## bkeeler10

Thanks a bunch to Wayne for the undoubtedly countless hours spent on this project. :clap: :T

I use Audyssey Pro which allows for up to 32 measurement positions. I have had mixed results using it so far, having calibrated a few dozen times over the past several years no doubt. I'm going to try a variation of the methods described by Wayne to take advantage of some of the additional measuring locations. I spent quite a bit of time last night measuring speaker positions and toe-in angles as precisely as I could, and then situating the mic in the PLP as accurately as possible. Pretty sure I've got everything accurate and consistent down to half and inch or less.

Please see the attached image. For music listening, it is almost always just me. For movies it's usually the wife and me (with me in the "sweet spot") or it's us and two guests.

I've tried to keep the focus around the listening position, and especially along the center line as recommended. Basically, to the recommended 8-position layout I've added a position 3" back and 3" inches high, and added positions forward, including one of them that is 3" below PLP height.

To all, and especially to Wayne if he has the time, does this seem like a good use of the additional measurement positions based on your experience with this? Is there something you'd do differently? I'm going to try to run the calibration tonight and do some listening to see if I get some improvement. Thanks for any input.


----------



## dieselpower1966

I ran the Audyssey MultiEQ on my Onkyo 805. I then went into the EQ. To see the settings and they were all at 
0. Did I miss something? I was expecting to see some values for the frequencies. Was I supposed to turn something on or off? 

Thanks
John
:scratch:


----------



## primetimeguy

dieselpower1966 said:


> I ran the Audyssey MultiEQ on my Onkyo 805. I then went into the EQ. To see the settings and they were all at
> 0. Did I miss something? I was expecting to see some values for the frequencies. Was I supposed to turn something on or off?
> 
> Thanks
> John
> :scratch:


There is no way to see the settings or corrections it is applying. You need separate measurement gear to determine that. Or your ears of course.


----------



## bigdogaxis

bkeeler10 said:


> I use Audyssey Pro which allows for up to 32 measurement positions. I have had mixed results using it so far, having calibrated a few dozen times over the past several years no doubt.


You would be the first Pro user in this thread. I, for one, am very interested in your results using Wayne's guide.


> Basically, to the recommended 8-position layout I've added a position 3" back and 3" inches high, and added positions forward, including one of them that is 3" below PLP height.


I suppose 3" below PLP would benefit a shorter person, but likely not yourself.


> To all, and especially to Wayne if he has the time, does this seem like a good use of the additional measurement positions based on your experience with this? Is there something you'd do differently?


I have XT32 which allows 8 measurements. I have two seat rows, so the 102 pattern works for me. Moreover, my surround speakers are between rows 1 & 2. I found success locating positions 7 & 8 one foot from row 2 seat back, no more than 3" from centerline. If I had Pro, I think I would measure row 2 in the same narrow field manner as row 1.


----------



## bigdogaxis

dieselpower1966 said:


> I ran the Audyssey MultiEQ on my Onkyo 805. I then went into the EQ. To see the settings and they were all at
> 0. Did I miss something? I was expecting to see some values for the frequencies.


Your UM shows EQ Settings options as Off, Manual, or Audyssey. If you see only 0 values in Audyssey EQ setting, then you likely did not save the auto speaker setup. You must start over.


----------



## D Bone

bigdogaxis said:


> Your UM shows EQ Settings options as Off, Manual, or Audyssey. If you see only 0 values in Audyssey EQ setting, then you likely did not save the auto speaker setup. You must start over.


No, Audyssey will not make any changes to the manual EQ to match its calibration. On Denon models, there is a "Copy Audyssey Flat Curve" in the manual EQ that copies a very crude representation of Audyssey's calibration settings, but that is not a feature on Onkyos. "All 0's" is totally normal and not an indication that the user did not save the Audyssey findings. If the user can click on different Audyssey curves (music/movie) then the settings were saved correctly, if those settings are greyed out, then the settings were not saved correctly.


----------



## AudiocRaver

mvision7m said:


> You guys are pretty right on I suppose, not much I can do to really nail it perfectly as far as Audyssey goes.
> 
> It's just strange that all my previous runs resulted in consistent distances and even the last run resulted in the same distances for every other speaker except the left (which I moved up a 10th" so I expected a different result) and the right (which I didn't touch but showed different by three 10ths) main speakers. Odd.
> 
> I guess there are just some variables that can't always be accounted for including small inaccuracies in the mic itself.
> 
> Thanks gents.


Can't count the number of times I have experienced that same frustration in some area of audio setup. "It worked 20 times before, why not now?" It always led me back to basics, to eliminating variables, understanding the situation better, tighter controls, more precision, sometimes simplification, sometimes more complexity. The outcome is usually a modified approach or a new one altogether. Chock it up to an opportunity to move your skills to a new level.



bkeeler10 said:


> Thanks a bunch to Wayne for the undoubtedly countless hours spent on this project. :clap: :T
> 
> I use Audyssey Pro which allows for up to 32 measurement positions. I have had mixed results using it so far, having calibrated a few dozen times over the past several years no doubt. I'm going to try a variation of the methods described by Wayne to take advantage of some of the additional measuring locations. I spent quite a bit of time last night measuring speaker positions and toe-in angles as precisely as I could, and then situating the mic in the PLP as accurately as possible. Pretty sure I've got everything accurate and consistent down to half and inch or less.
> 
> Please see the attached image. For music listening, it is almost always just me. For movies it's usually the wife and me (with me in the "sweet spot") or it's us and two guests.
> 
> I've tried to keep the focus around the listening position, and especially along the center line as recommended. Basically, to the recommended 8-position layout I've added a position 3" back and 3" inches high, and added positions forward, including one of them that is 3" below PLP height.
> 
> To all, and especially to Wayne if he has the time, does this seem like a good use of the additional measurement positions based on your experience with this? Is there something you'd do differently? I'm going to try to run the calibration tonight and do some listening to see if I get some improvement. Thanks for any input.


You are experimenting. That is good. Your pattern looks like a good one to try. The "down 3 in" could help a little for those "slumping down" times. It is only one position out of 14, so it gets averaged down to lower significance. Keeping the priority on the center line is good.

Beginning height should be ear height, yours since you are the main / most discriminating listener. A soft, plushy blanket over the back of the chair helps the measurements and the listening later on by cutting down reflections.

It was suggested you add a few points for the back row. If you do, keep them well out from the wall, at least 2 ft.



dieselpower1966 said:


> I ran the Audyssey MultiEQ on my Onkyo 805. I then went into the EQ. To see the settings and they were all at
> 0. Did I miss something? I was expecting to see some values for the frequencies. Was I supposed to turn something on or off?
> 
> Thanks
> John
> :scratch:


As others have indicated, Audyssey MultEQ setup has nothing to do with the graphic EQ in your AVR. You can only "see" the resulting correction directly with the Pro kit or by running a measurement sweep on the processing being performed in your AVR - a bit complicated to accomplish.


----------



## bkeeler10

AudiocRaver said:


> You are experimenting. That is good. Your pattern looks like a good one to try. The "down 3 in" could help a little for those "slumping down" times. It is only one position out of 14, so it gets averaged down to lower significance. Keeping the priority on the center line is good.
> 
> Beginning height should be ear height, yours since you are the main / most discriminating listener. A soft, plushy blanket over the back of the chair helps the measurements and the listening later on by cutting down reflections.
> 
> It was suggested you add a few points for the back row. If you do, keep them well out from the wall, at least 2 ft.


Thanks Wayne. I figured you were moving some of the center line positions up three inches, so I thought why not add a position down three inches. My couches are cloth so should be absorptive at frequencies that matter, plus the mic was never below the top of the back of the couch anyway. While there is a second row of seats, they are practically never used and are too close to the back wall anyway.

I did run a calibration last night as planned, with a few minor variations as shown on the picture. Audyssey Pro (at least the product-specific version I run) requires at least three positions before you can verify levels and distances. I would just leave the mic in the first position for three runs and then look at the distance numbers to verify they were correct, then go back and undo the second two measurements (Pro allows you to do this -- not that it would have hurt to leave three runs of the first position anyway).

So I ran through that a few times because on two occasions the left speaker and right speaker distances were different by about 2'. On another run they were different by half a foot. On the last run they were different by 0.1 feet. That's more like it -- I carefully measured to ensure that they were equidistant from the first mic position (within a few inches). It is rather surprising (and somewhat disconcerting) that it could be so different. The mic did not get moved for any of those runs. It's no wonder some people struggle to get things to sound right!

Anyway, I spent so much time with it all that it got too late to listen. I will try to do that in the next day or three and report on my findings.


----------



## JimShaw

AudiocRaver said:


> Beginning height should be ear height, yours since you are the main / most discriminating listener.* A soft, plushy blanket over the back of the chair helps the measurements and the listening later on by cutting down reflections.*


I have never heard anything about doing this.

My large couch is a soft leather. While calibrating, you suggest a blanket thrown over such a couch. Very interesting. I will do next time, thanks.

Directly behind the couch is a wall of wood shutters. I do close them down while calibrating.


----------



## bigdogaxis

JimShaw said:


> My large couch is a soft leather.


Hey Jim - don't miss the second part of Wayne's suggestion to keep the blanket in place for listening, too.


> Directly behind the couch is a wall of wood shutters.


If you tried calibrating with the shutters at different stages of open/closed, you might find a way to create a diffuser. That would be totally cool.


----------



## JimShaw

bigdogaxis said:


> Hey Jim - don't miss the second part of Wayne's suggestion to keep the blanket in place for listening, too. If you tried calibrating with the shutters at different stages of open/closed, you might find a way to create a diffuser. That would be totally cool.


I wondered about that, keeping the blanket in place. A diffuser? I will give that a try. Interesting


----------



## AudiocRaver

From an experiment awhile back, to see the influence of a "typical" comfy chair on a single measurement taken at the ear position just a few inches away from the back of the chair at a level about even with the top of the chair back.

blue = Chair removed, several feet away from the measurement mic.
red = Chair in its normal place with reflection back to the microphone.
green = Chair back covered by a plush blanket, folded in quarters so four thicknesses of blanket are absorbing sound and preventing reflections back to the measurement mic.
 



Both the impulse diagram and the frequency response diagram show that the chair back without blanket causes a sizable reflection and associated variations in the frequency response at the ear. The biggest change is a dip at 1 kHz, a pretty sensitive part of the hearing. This alone does not stand out, but can mess with image clarity a little.

When Audyssey MultEQ is run, it sees the dip in the frequency response and CORRECTS it, resulting in a _peak_ in the frequency response which will stand out. Of course the mic pattern will make a difference, and the influence of that reflection gets reduced somewhat by the averaging process. Seeing the difference it can make, I have gotten in the habit of always using a plush blanket folded in quarters for measurements and for listening.


----------



## JimShaw

AudiocRaver,

Extremely interesting.

If a blanket were used during the calibration then afterwards removed, wouldn't someone sitting in that spot in a sense fill in for the blanket?




m


----------



## AudiocRaver

Perhaps somewhat. The main reflection of concern is from (for example) the left speaker to the chair back to the left ear, and would not be blocked by the head or body. There are plenty of variables, though, and the blanket will not always make a big difference.


----------



## JimShaw

AudiocRaver said:


> Perhaps somewhat. The main reflection of concern is from (for example) the left speaker to the chair back to the left ear, and would not be blocked by the head or body. There are plenty of variables, though, and the blanket will not always make a big difference.


Understandable, thanks


----------



## bigdogaxis

AudiocRaver said:


> The "down 3 in"...is only one position out of 14, so it gets averaged down to lower significance. Keeping the priority on the center line is good.


I take it that Audyssey MultEQ (all flavors) uses a weighted average, diminishing each subsequent mic position. If so, it seems eight mic positions may not significantly outweigh six, ie difference between XT32 and standard MultEQ. 

I am sincerely interested in Audyssey Pro. I suppose the advantage is customization, not necessarily the extra mic positions. Does Pro offer subwoofer EQ? -Paul


----------



## AudiocRaver

Audyssey MultEQ uses some kind of averaging, obviously. I am not sure what kind of weighting might be involved.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

bigdogaxis said:


> I take it that Audyssey MultEQ (all flavors) uses a weighted average, diminishing each subsequent mic position. If so, it seems eight mic positions may not significantly outweigh six, ie difference between XT32 and standard MultEQ.
> 
> I am sincerely interested in Audyssey Pro. I suppose the advantage is customization, not necessarily the extra mic positions. Does Pro offer subwoofer EQ? -Paul





AudiocRaver said:


> Audyssey MultEQ uses some kind of averaging, obviously. I am not sure what kind of weighting might be involved.


They use "fuzzy logic" to find the commonalities among the various positions and weight calculations accordingly. So, the effect of adding more positions will depend on what is going on at those positions. That is why multiple scans at the same position(s) will not add new info and why they advise against positions outside the normal listening listening area.


----------



## bkeeler10

bigdogaxis said:


> I take it that Audyssey MultEQ (all flavors) uses a weighted average, diminishing each subsequent mic position. If so, it seems eight mic positions may not significantly outweigh six, ie difference between XT32 and standard MultEQ.
> 
> I am sincerely interested in Audyssey Pro. I suppose the advantage is customization, not necessarily the extra mic positions. Does Pro offer subwoofer EQ? -Paul


Yes at some point you run into diminishing returns when you use more mic positions I think.

The version of Pro that I use is not current. It was written specifically for the system I use and has not been updated for a few years at least. So I don't know much about the current Pro. I know that it allows you to mess with the curve (nice for people who know what they are doing, which is who it is designed for). The version I use does not allow for this but allows you to choose between flat or three different high frequency roll offs. Other than that you don't get any control

Edit: The other problem with having lots of positions available is that you're tempted to use them and often not in a good way. I have fallen into that trap and Wayne's method has brought me back around.


----------



## bkeeler10

So I watched The Wolverine last night with the new calibration in place. I had never seen it before and so it is not a good frame of reference but it sure sounded good. It may have been some of the best surround envelopment I have heard from my system. The scenes with rain in the first several minutes were very convincing. Still need to run through some familiar music to get a better feel for things.


----------



## bigdogaxis

Kal Rubinson said:


> They advise against positions outside the normal listening listening area.


Thanks Kal. That explains why Wayne's centerline pattern is better for me. Previously, I used Audyssey's recommended pattern which literally covers the entire listening area.


----------



## bigdogaxis

q"bkeeler10;685189" said:


> Yes at some point you run into diminishing returns when you use more mic positions I think. I know that it allows you to mess with the curve (nice for people who know what they are doing, which is who it is designed for). The version I use does not allow for this but allows you to choose between flat or three different high frequency roll offs. Other than that you don't get any control Edit: The other problem with having lots of positions available is that you're tempted to use them and often not in a good way. I have fallen into that trap and Wayne's method has brought me back around.


Thanks bkeeler. REW shows I need EQ between 50-60Hz and again at 80Hz. It may be in my favor to use a REW programmable EQ instead of Audyssey Pro.


----------



## bkeeler10

Well Audyssey should be able to correct that for you, especially if you don't ask it to equalize over a huge area. Of course you should be able to do it manually too as you suggest.


----------



## primetimeguy

bigdogaxis said:


> Thanks bkeeler. REW shows I need EQ between 50-60Hz and again at 80Hz. It may be in my favor to use a REW programmable EQ instead of Audyssey Pro.


Agree with bkeeler10, XT32 should have no problem EQing that range, unless you have large nulls which no amount of EQ will take care of. I personally do not think Pro will do you much good.


----------



## bigdogaxis

I didn't know XT32 EQ'd subs. I thought it only balanced the subs with speaker levels. I will run REW with XT32 and compare to Audyssey off.


----------



## BeeMan458

bigdogaxis said:


> I didn't know XT32 EQ'd subs. I thought it only balanced the subs with speaker levels. I will run REW with XT32 and compare to Audyssey off.


Depends. Some AVRs are equipped with XT32 and others have separate, dual subwoofer outs and the AVR is also equipped with SubEQ HT which EQs the subs separately.

At the beginning of the calibration run, the receiver requests the user to adjust the subwoofer's gain to 75dB and then individually pings each sub for distance or phase.


----------



## bigdogaxis

I consulted the 4311 manual. Now there's a novel idea! It never mentions Sub EQ HT; however, Audyssey's Chris Kyriakakis supports your statement. If MultEQ separately pings two subs, then the AVR has Sub EQ HT. The XT32's focus is higher resolution overall, but weighted to the sub FR. 

I will measure my recent MultEQ XT32 calibration to see the result. It's too bad the AVR only shows speaker graphs, not subs.


----------



## BeeMan458

As I'm sure you know, it's helps a boatload if one can see how well their subwoofer's output is getting along with the acoustics in the listening room.

Do you have an up and running, freeware copy of REW so you're able to take and post room sweep measurements?


----------



## bigdogaxis

I do have REW which I used to locate my subs. Work has been crazy, but I will measure Audyssey with REW to see how well it smooths my subs and blends the mains.


----------



## BeeMan458

Hope work settles for you so you can get some me style downtime.

Mmmmmm, very nice (enviable) ML speaker set.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Kal Rubinson said:


> They use "fuzzy logic" to find the commonalities among the various positions and weight calculations accordingly. So, the effect of adding more positions will depend on what is going on at those positions. That is why multiple scans at the same position(s) will not add new info and why they advise against positions outside the normal listening listening area.


I figured it was something like that, more complex than simple averaging.

Thanks, Kal.


----------



## tcarcio

Sorry if this was asked already but I did not find an answer to this question. I added new speakers to my setup and ran Audyssey again. It sounds great and it really did a great job clearing up the vocals. My question is although Audyssey set my front crossover to 40hz, which is correct because the speakers are rated down to 38hz plus or minus 3db, I found that if I change the fronts to full band it seems to be a little fuller bass but is that real world or is it just me. I ask because my subwoofer is the Danley DTS-10 and it is well capable of handling the frequencies below 80hz. Also it set my crossover of my center at 100hz even though they are rated to 70hz +/ -. I know it is said to not lower the crossover but is that a definite or are there times when it is a good idea. Thanks for any help. :T


----------



## NBPk402

tcarcio said:


> Sorry if this was asked already but I did not find an answer to this question. I added new speakers to my setup and ran Audyssey again. It sounds great and it really did a great job clearing up the vocals. My question is although Audyssey set my front crossover to 40hz, which is correct because the speakers are rated down to 38hz plus or minus 3db, I found that if I change the fronts to full band it seems to be a little fuller bass but is that real world or is it just me. I ask because my subwoofer is the Danley DTS-10 and it is well capable of handling the frequencies below 80hz. Also it set my crossover of my center at 100hz even though they are rated to 70hz +/ -. I know it is said to not lower the crossover but is that a definite or are there times when it is a good idea. Thanks for any help. :T


I have the DTS-10s too, and my main channel speakers go down to around 35hz. When i run Audyssey it sets the crossovers to 150hz... I change it to 80hz for all speakers, and then set my crossover for the LFE to 100hz, and it sounds great.


----------



## tcarcio

ellisr63 said:


> I have the DTS-10s too, and my main channel speakers go down to around 35hz. When i run Audyssey it sets the crossovers to 150hz... I change it to 80hz for all speakers, and then set my crossover for the LFE to 100hz, and it sounds great.


Thanks for the quick response. I just wonder, if Audyssey sets the crossover and you lower it does it ignore it anyway?


----------



## JimShaw

tcarcio said:


> Thanks for the quick response. I just wonder, if Audyssey sets the crossover and you lower it does it ignore it anyway?


I was told by Audyssey never change the calibrated crossover measurement down but increasing them up is alright. If you change it down, from what I understand, invalidates the Audyssey calibration

Maybe AudiocRaver can verify this


----------



## asere

You can raise the crossover but never bring it lower than what Audyssey set it to or you will have a gap.


----------



## tcarcio

Thanks guy's but what about my first question about changing the fronts to full range? Any advice on that?


----------



## NBPk402

tcarcio said:


> Thanks guy's but what about my first question about changing the fronts to full range? Any advice on that?


I was told that you should usually run all your speakers a small... This way it is easier on your amp and lets the sub do its job.


----------



## tcarcio

Yes I agree but my fronts now have 2 15" drivers in each so in some cases I wonder if it will help. Like I said it seems to help the low end a little but I just don't know if it really helps or is it just wishfull thinking on my part. I think it is kind of like speaker wire if you buy some very expensive wire then you talk yourself into thinking it sounds better. Thanks for the input....:T


----------



## AustinJerry

Two part answer:

First, Audyssey determines the F3 point for the mains (the point at which the frequency response is down by 3dB) and reports this value to the AVR. Audyssey calculates filters down to the F3 point, *but not below*. Regardless of the Manufacturer's rating for the speakers, the F3 may be above (or sometimes even below) the Manufacturer's rating, depending on room conditions and placement. The AVR, having received the F3 value from Audyssey, establishes the crossover value. So, if you lower the crossover below what the AVR sets, then you have a gap between the lower crossover and the F3 point, a gap which has no Audyssey correction. This is not generally recommended.

Second, WRT setting the mains to large, one of two things could happen, depending on the corresponding setting for LFE on your AVR. The LFE channel normally has two settings, either "play low frequency tones for all speakers *set to small*", or "play low frequencies for *all speakers*". In either case, if you set the mains to "large", then both the mains and the subs are receiving the same low frequency signals, which is sometimes called "double bass", and which can have unpleasing effects on the bass response. Sure, it sounds different because you are hearing double bass. Does it sound better? Only two ways to tell--your ears (preference), or by taking objective measurements with something like REW. 

IMO, you have a very capable sub. Why not let it do what it was intended to do by setting the mains to "small", and even raising the crossover to at least 80Hz? Take some time to listen to the results, paying close attention to the overall smoothness of the bass, not the "punch". If you need more punch, raise the sub channel trim in the AVR. My bet is that you will like approach better. Let us know what you decide.


----------



## tcarcio

AustinJerry said:


> Two part answer:
> 
> First, Audyssey determines the F3 point for the mains (the point at which the frequency response is down by 3dB) and reports this value to the AVR. Audyssey calculates filters down to the F3 point, *but not below*. Regardless of the Manufacturer's rating for the speakers, the F3 may be above (or sometimes even below) the Manufacturer's rating, depending on room conditions and placement. The AVR, having received the F3 value from Audyssey, establishes the crossover value. So, if you lower the crossover below what the AVR sets, then you have a gap between the lower crossover and the F3 point, a gap which has no Audyssey correction. This is not generally recommended.
> 
> Second, WRT setting the mains to large, one of two things could happen, depending on the corresponding setting for LFE on your AVR. The LFE channel normally has two settings, either "play low frequency tones for all speakers *set to small*", or "play low frequencies for *all speakers*". In either case, if you set the mains to "large", then both the mains and the subs are receiving the same low frequency signals, which is sometimes called "double bass", and which can have unpleasing effects on the bass response. Sure, it sounds different because you are hearing double bass. Does it sound better? Only two ways to tell--your ears (preference), or by taking objective measurements with something like REW.
> 
> IMO, you have a very capable sub. Why not let it do what it was intended to do by setting the mains to "small", and even raising the crossover to at least 80Hz? Take some time to listen to the results, paying close attention to the overall smoothness of the bass, not the "punch". If you need more punch, raise the sub channel trim in the AVR. My bet is that you will like approach better. Let us know what you decide.


Thanks for that detailed response. I do think it sounds better with the fronts set to full range but I haven't listened to a movie yet. I am going to watch Transformers 4 tonight and I think I will get a better idea of what sounds best. I will post my findings here and again thanks so much...:T


----------



## AustinJerry

tcarcio said:


> Thanks for that detailed response. I do think it sounds better with the fronts set to full range but I haven't listened to a movie yet. I am going to watch Transformers 4 tonight and I think I will get a better idea of what sounds best. I will post my findings here and again thanks so much...:T


What type of content you listen to depends, of course, on the primary use of your listening room. While I enjoy movies as much as anyone, I always evaluate the quality of my audio system by listening to music. To assess bass quality, I listen to music selections that have strong, defined bass content, like a nice upright bass. I listen very closely to how well-defined the individual bass notes are, which is often an indication of how well bass ringing is controlled. When I listen to a movie, the bass usually happens with actions scenes, like explosions, etc. Action scenes are good measures of bass punch, but not necessarily of bass quality.

Ultimately, you need to assess your overall audio quality based on what your objectives are.


----------



## tcarcio

I agree and for now I am judging by listening to some music. I set Audyssey to the music setting for a flater response and it seems to help with just what you mentioned. After the movie tonight I will see the difference. I hope it is just as simple as just setting Audyssey back to movie mode but most of the time it isn't that simple. I will let you guy's know how it turns out....:T


----------



## D Bone

Are you using DEQ? If yes, what RLO setting?


----------



## AustinJerry

D Bone said:


> Are you using DEQ? If yes, what RLO setting?


Not sure how DEQ and RLO pertain to the OP's original questions about lowering crossovers and setting speakers to large...

Care to elaborate?


----------



## D Bone

Asking because of his perception of bass, and that perception is driving his wanting to switch the fronts to large.


----------



## tcarcio

Sorry, I had to step out for awhile. About DEQ when I ran Audyssey it turned on the DEQ unless it was on before I did the EQ and it doesn't shut it off. Plus I thought DEQ only effected the sound when you are listening at low levels.


----------



## D Bone

It affects the bass at levels lower than 0db MV (if you have the RLO set to 0db). At any rate, if I were you, I would set all speakers to small with a x-over around 80-100hz. 

On my system, Audyssey set my towers to large, and I changed them to small with an 80hz x-over. My PSA XV15 handles the bass, because that's what it was designed to do, even though my towers do an admirable job of producing bass on their own. 

Cleaner mids, highs and more head room are just some of the benefits of proper bass management.


----------



## tcarcio

I do have it set to 0db but after I see how the movie sounds tonight I will try those settings and see if it is better. Thanks.


----------



## tcarcio

OK, I watched Transformers 4 last night and although the movie stunk it was defiinitley a workout for my system. I did have to adjust the bass a little and I also turned off the Dynamic EQ and it sounded great. I really love what Adyssey did especially for the vocals. They were very clear and easy to hear. Thanks guy's for all your advice, It is much appreciated. :T


----------



## asere

tcarcio said:


> OK, I watched Transformers 4 last night and although the movie stunk it was defiinitley a workout for my system. I did have to adjust the bass a little and I also turned off the Dynamic EQ and it sounded great. I really love what Adyssey did especially for the vocals. They were very clear and easy to hear. Thanks guy's for all your advice, It is much appreciated. :T


Glad it worked out. I'm curious to know what version of Audyssey do you have?
I went from plain Eq to XT and it's night and day with the bass. Xt32 is even better.


----------



## tcarcio

asere said:


> Glad it worked out. I'm curious to know what version of Audyssey do you have?


I have the Onkyo TX NR-809 and it has XT. My next receiver will definitely have XT32 if they are still making them.


----------



## asere

tcarcio said:


> I have the Onkyo TX NR-809 and it has XT. My next receiver will definitely have XT32 if they are still making them.


I hear you and if they don't make it an older receiver in mint condition with XT32 it is.


----------



## tcarcio

asere said:


> I hear you and if they don't make it an older receiver in mint condition with XT32 it is.


I agree. I might do the same.


----------



## andysor

Just got my first receiver with Audyssey XT (Denon X2100W), upgraded from my ancient HK AVR4000, and I'm finally pretty happy after loads of setup.

My experience:
EQ as is with 4 positions - pretty happy, but center test signal sounds different, despite same speaker family (B&W 602.5 fronts, B&W LCR 600 centre). After reading some tips I change all speakers to small with 80dB crossover.

Check center EQ and realise treble is way off. Check connections and my cable terminals on the tweeter are loose! For the past 2 years since I moved my tweeter hasn't been playing on my centre! Fix it and dialogue intelligibility is so much better!

Try with 8 measurements, including behind the listening position and it's definitely worse, especially the bass.

LFE is a bit lighter than I'm used to, so move the sub from side, approximately 3 feet from the corner into the corner. I'm hoping that the correction might be able to tame the boom and give me more LFE. This results in ATROCIOUS sound with super-muddy bass and much softer LFE.

Move sub back to side wall, redo calibration with all measurements close to main position and now I'm very happy.

***Any tips on boosting LFE without boosting bass from the other channels?


----------



## AudiocRaver

andysor said:


> Check center EQ and realise treble is way off. Check connections and my cable terminals on the tweeter are loose! For the past 2 years since I moved my tweeter hasn't been playing on my centre! Fix it and dialogue intelligibility is so much better!


Good catch. There is no substitute for attention to detail.



> Try with 8 measurements, including behind the listening position and it's definitely worse, especially the bass.
> 
> LFE is a bit lighter than I'm used to, so move the sub from side, approximately 3 feet from the corner into the corner. I'm hoping that the correction might be able to tame the boom and give me more LFE. This results in ATROCIOUS sound with super-muddy bass and much softer LFE.
> 
> Move sub back to side wall, redo calibration with all measurements close to main position and now I'm very happy.


Sub in the corner is rarely a good idea, unless there are huge traps to tame the booming resonances.

Taking measurements closer to the LP is usually my advice, but opinions vary.

The way the LFE signal and the redirected low frequencies from other channels combine can be AVR-dependent, but I do not believe there is a way to control their ratios with a simple AVR setting or control.


----------



## AustinJerry

For anyone contemplating the purchase of an Audyssey Pro kit, you may find this analysis useful:

Audyssey Pro vs. Standard Calibration

The analysis contains a reference to the "REW Guide", which can be viewed here: REW Guide


----------



## AudiocRaver

AustinJerry said:


> For anyone contemplating the purchase of an Audyssey Pro kit, you may find this analysis useful:
> 
> Audyssey Pro vs. Standard Calibration
> 
> The analysis contains a reference to the "REW Guide", which can be viewed here: REW Guide


Thanks for sharing the analysis results, Jerry. I assume you are the author? (no big deal either way, just curious) We appreciate your always-informative contributions on Audyssey topics.

Question: Does the Pro kit allow one to view all of the individual measurement plots as well as the corrected plot for each speaker?


----------



## AustinJerry

AudiocRaver said:


> Thanks for sharing the analysis results, Jerry. I assume you are the author? (no big deal either way, just curious) We appreciate your always-informative contributions on Audyssey topics.
> 
> Question: Does the Pro kit allow one to view all of the individual measurement plots as well as the corrected plot for each speaker?


Thank you for the kind words, and yes, I am the author of both documents, although I had a lot of help developing the Guide.

As part of each calibration, Pro produces what is called the "Calibration Certificate", and example of which is included below. It is of limited value, first of all because the "after" graphs are a predicted response, calculated by applying the correction to the "before" measurement. While mathematically they should be reasonably accurate, actual in-room REW measurements are more credible, IMO. Second, the "after" graphs are highly smoothed (1/3 smoothing, IIRC).

The Pro kit was developed by Audyssey for Pro installers, and the Certificate is definitely something that is nice to show a customer after a custom calibration. Beyond that, its value is marginal.


----------



## mvision7m

Hopefully this hasn't been asked previously. I would greatly appreciate any educated and experienced information from any knowledgable member. 

I was using RCA cables from my Marantz AV8801 to outputs my amps (Emotiva XPA-/XPA-3) as well as from my OPPO BDP-95 stereo outs to the Marantz's stereo in.

Today I changed those RCA cables all to XLR cables and then re-ran Audyssey MultiEQ XT32. 

With RCA cables in place, the main speaker (LCR) trim levels were in the -8db to -9.5db area and they consistently result in those levels after running Audyssey a bunch of times since owning the AV8801. 

With XLR cables in place, the main LCR speaker trim levels are at -12db (lowest possible trim level on the 8801). I do know XLR cable typically have a lower noise floor and/or gain or something that usually shows up as a gain in volume (layman's explanation) so I figured the trims would be even lower than the -8db to -9.5db I was getting with the RCA cables. 

Q - Is there anything inherently wrong with having trim levels set at the minimum possible? Are any of the electronics in the chain at risk of overdrive or damage? 

The sound is great however, I played John Mayer's 'Where The Light Is' blu ray and it sounded so good I kept turning the volume up. The sound remained cohesive, lively and rhythmic even at that elevated volume level (-6db). Nothing broke, shut down or went into protection mode and nothing appeared to be wrong but there were a couple of times there was a sort of hiccup in the sound and the sound changed ever so slightly. I don't remember any hiccups in the sound on that disk so it got me wondering if the volume on the BDP-95 is too high leading to those -12 trim levels. I've played that blu ray many times at high volume and have never had any issues with playback. My system always seemed to handle it well and I believe it is fully capable of doing so. 

The BDP-95 has two choices, fixed volume output and variable output. Should I set it to variable output and lower the volume then re-run Audyssey or is my set up likely fine as is now? 

Thanks for any helpful input. 
All the best to all members.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

mvision7m said:


> With XLR cables in place, the main LCR speaker trim levels are at -12db (lowest possible trim level on the 8801). I do know XLR cable typically have a lower noise floor and/or gain or something that usually shows up as a gain in volume (layman's explanation) so I figured the trims would be even lower than the -8db to -9.5db I was getting with the RCA cables.


-12dB is lower than -8 to -9.5dB. OTOH, -12dB might be pegging the low end of the adjustment range for the 8801.


----------



## AustinJerry

I have a similar setup, with the 8810, and XPA-7, and an Oppo player. Obviously, your speakers are very efficient.

Yes, there is an issue if the trims are maxed out at -12. You don't know if the trim would have even been lower, were the lower limit not -12. What you need to do is install a signal attenuator, either 6dB or 12dB. Here is a link showing typical signal attenuators: http://www.parts-express.com/Search.aspx?keyword=attenuator&sitesearch=true. If you want to see additional discussion on this topic, which is quite common, check out the Audyssey thread on AVS.


----------



## mvision7m

Thanks for the replies. 

Just checked and all speaker trim levels (5.1 set up) are at -12db except for the sub which is at a normal -3.5db. The sun usually results right around that level give or take a .5db. 

-12db is pegged at bottom end of trim adjustment on the 8801. 

Nothing sounds wrong, in fact everything sounds great as stated earlier with the exception of that slight hiccup in the sound on' Where The Light Is' also mentioned earlier. 

I just want to be sure I'm not in any danger of damaging anything. Only changes made today were from RCA to XLR cables and a re-run of Audyssey. Everything went smoothly, no set up problems. 

I just tried switching the BDP-95 to 'variable' volume and turned the volume all the war down from 100 to 0 but nothing at all happened. No change in volume. Nothing. Hm. 

I also emailed Marantz and OPPO to see what input they can offer. 

Anyway, thanks again for the replies and assistance. Much appreciated.


----------



## tonyvdb

Was there any difference in the sound going from rca (un balanced) to xlr (balanced)?
I would think there should not be as the real advantage to using balanced connections is when your doing long runs.


----------



## mvision7m

tonyvdb said:


> Was there any difference in the sound going from rca (un balanced) to xlr (balanced)? I would think there should not be as the real advantage to using balanced connections is when your doing long runs.


In my setup there is a distinct change in sound quality however, I think I potentially had something set up incorrectly somewhere in the chain prior to the cable/Audyssey changes I made today. There's not only an increase in perceived volume (too much!?) but also a positive increase in nuance, detail in bass lines, cymbal work, guitar notes an ambiance. I noticed all of those while watching the John Mayer blu ray and as I said, I've watched that blu ray many times and while it always sounded good, it never sounded so together, detailed and driving in a good way. Rhythmic, balanced and altogether fun. The sound is punchier and more alive than before I made the changes. So, possibly its a combo of the cable changes and rerunning Audyssey but more likely I had a setting off somewhere or something. I'm not sure. 

My concerns out the trim levels came from that weird change in sound after the soundtrack seemed to hiccup for half a second earlier today at higher volume. Something I've never heard or experienced before in my system. 

I just got off the phone with Marantz (1-800-654-6633 for anyone else whom may ever need it). Rep said -12db on all speaker trim levels isn't necessarily indicative of a problem and also said if the calibration process completed successfully without any error messages or warnings then everything should be fine. He suggested possibly running Audyssey a few more times to verify settings/trims etc. for consistency. He didn't seem at all concerned at the -12db levels I got. Guess we'll see. Hopefully everything is fine. I may re-run Audyssey a few more times as the rep suggested but I won't be able to do that until next weekend. 

Thanks again for all the suggestions and input. You guys are great.


----------



## primetimeguy

I'm guessing the perceived sound quality is because the sound is actually louder now since the levels of the main speakers are probably set too high since the trims are bottomed out. This also means your relationship between your mains and the bass (subwoofer) is also different. At the same volume dial setting as before you have less bass and overall louder volume.


----------



## tonyvdb

Seems to me that having levels going to the Emotiva so low from the Marantz would be an issue. Would be interesting to now switch back to rca and simply bring up the levels in the Marants and see how it sounds.


----------



## AudiocRaver

It would be interesting to know more specifics about the nature of the "hickups" you mention.

But yes, it is possible/likely that the gain settings you speak of are set at their minimum levels and are still resulting in higher gain than you were used to before, resulting in clipping somewhere in your system. AustinJerry's suggestions would indeed more than likely resolve the issue at a given Master Volume Level setting. The other way to resolve it is turn the Master Volume Control down by 3 or 6 dB - if the hickups only occurred at high volume levels, then the clipping is taking place following the AVR's Master Volume Control, so turning it down would accomplish what you are looking for.

This solution might not allow you to calibrate zero system level as you are used to, however, and adding the suggested attenuator will. I would go with the 10 dB XLR to XLR attenuator from Parts Express.

If you have the know-how to build your own attenuator, here are the circuit diagram and values to use.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Other thoughts:

The signal levels with balanced cables are higher, not lower, thus calling for greater attenuation to get them closer to the levels you had before. The available attenuation range does not give enough attenuation, and the additional cable attenuation is intended to compensate.
All the signal levels being discussed are very reasonable, no need that I can think of to be concerned about them being too low or too high (other than the clipping, obviously)
Agree with the comments that the greater clarity, detail, etc probably were byproducts of
higher volume than you listened at before
higher volume of mids and highs relative to subwoofer frequencies
XT-32 re-cal; re-calibration of XT-32 almost guarantees a different EQ result, hopefully only slight, but often not - XT-32 calibration repeatability requires obsessive attention to detail

So many variables, it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions about the use of the balanced cables themselves.


----------



## mvision7m

AudiocRaver said:


> Other thoughts: [*]The signal levels with balanced cables are higher, not lower, thus calling for greater attenuation to get them closer to the levels you had before. The available attenuation range does not give enough attenuation, and the additional cable attenuation is intended to compensate. [*]All the signal levels being discussed are very reasonable, no need that I can think of to be concerned about them being too low or too high (other than the clipping, obviously) [*]Agree with the comments that the greater clarity, detail, etc probably were byproducts of [*]higher volume than you listened at before [*]higher volume of mids and highs relative to subwoofer frequencies [*]XT-32 re-cal; re-calibration of XT-32 almost guarantees a different EQ result, hopefully only slight, but often not - XT-32 calibration repeatability requires obsessive attention to detail So many variables, it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions about the use of the balanced cables themselves.


Agreed, too many variables. Thank you though. 

Also as I said in a previous post, as far as things sounding better to me. It could be the changes I made earlier today (including settings changes), it could be a setting that I had set incorrectly, it could be the perceived volume increase due to the XLR cables or a combo of all of those factors. Doesn't really matter at the end of the day. 

Either way Marantz doesn't seem concerned about the trim levels I got today so for the moment I'm not either. Next weekend I'll likely run Audyssey again to see if I get the same or nearly the same results or different results mainly out of curiosity. 

I also found a setting on the Marantz within the 'INPUTS' and 'SOURCE LEVEL' settings in which I can attenuate either analog sources or digital sources. The default setting on each is +6 (max). So, ultimately, I can use that feature to further attenuate the signal next weekend if the levels consistently come back at -12db or close to that result. 

The hiccup in the audio that I heard earlier was a half second stutter in the soundtrack and then a very slight but still perceptible change in the character of the overall sound. It could all be nothing. Time will tell more. My initial question was based on knowing the Audyssey results of -12db on all channels except the sub. I was simply curious to know from anyone who may have had a similar or the same results from Audyssey if it has been a problem for them. 

I appreciate all the replies and input. If anything else of note comes up I'll post about it. 
Thanks again everyone.


----------



## primetimeguy

The source level adjustment won't help you since it adjusts all channels by that level. Audysesy ignores this when running a calibration so it won't have any impact there. The reality is your trims at - 12 are a problem if you are looking for an accurate calibration. Since more than likely they need to be much lower. Your only real solution is to use attenuators like someone mentioned.


----------



## mvision7m

primetimeguy said:


> The source level adjustment won't help you since it adjusts all channels by that level. Audysesy ignores this when running a calibration so it won't have any impact there. The reality is your trims at - 12 are a problem if you are looking for an accurate calibration. Since more than likely they need to be much lower. Your only real solution is to use attenuators like someone mentioned.


Absolutely correct. 

Goes to show my overall inexperience and lack of detailed knowledge in how to properly set up and get these devices to play nice together. 

This weekend I'm going to use my SPL meter to see where the levels are hitting with all channels pegged at -12db. 

Thanks to everyone again for the assist on this.


----------



## mvision7m

UPDATE: 

Had a little time this morning. I re-ran Audyssey and the result was identical to my previous run. All speaker distances and levels were set exactly as the last run. Satellite speakers all at -12dB and the sub at -3.5dB. 

I decided to check those trim levels using two different SPL meters to do so. My radio shack meter and and iPhone app SPL meter. (iPhone meter very close readings to radio shack meter)

Using the pre-pro's test tone speaker level feature I found that all of the speakers were closely matched (set at -12dB) to between 73dB and 74dB at volume 0. They weren't perfectly matched but very close. I used the radio shack meter to adjust the trims on each channel so each speaker was hitting 75dB at 0 volume consistently. 

I'm sure there is a logical reason for it but the auto calibration always seems to set the sub's output about 10dB lower than the satellite speakers. I'm guessing it does that for a valid reason but the bass isn't as impactful or dramatic as it seems it should be so I bumped it up to hit 70dB. That may not be perfectly calibrated to Audyssey standards but the bass just seems more engaging turned up a little from the calibrated -3.5dB. The sub's trim is set right at 0. 

Unfortunately I didn't have the time to do an in depth listening session so when I can I will re-check the trim levels and see how things sound. 

Thanks again everyone, hope no one got hit too hard with snow. Be safe.


----------



## edgeh2o

Real nice of you to create this guide. You compared many different mic patterns against each other, but as far as I can tell, you didn't try the pattern that Audyssey recommends for MultiEQ here (positions 1-6): http://www.audyssey.com/sites/default/files/howtomulteq300.png

If you did try that arrangement and I totally missed it, can you tell me in which section I could find the results? Otherwise, how do you think that arrangement would score for FR and IC?

Thank you.

(Edited to add, I don't have a center listening seat. I have a 4-seater couch that is centered with my TV/center channel, so my PLPC would be directly in between the two middle seats. So if my seats looked like this |_|_|_|_| with the vertical lines being the border between seats, and if we labeled the borders 1,2,3,4,5, then according to Audyssey's recommended mic pattern, I would first put the mic at the 3rd line, then the 4th, then the 2nd, then in front of the 2nd, in front of the 3rd, and finally, in front of the 4th.)


----------



## AudiocRaver

edgeh2o said:


> Real nice of you to create this guide. You compared many different mic patterns against each other, but as far as I can tell, you didn't try the pattern that Audyssey recommends for MultiEQ here (positions 1-6): http://www.audyssey.com/sites/default/files/howtomulteq300.png
> 
> If you did try that arrangement and I totally missed it, can you tell me in which section I could find the results? Otherwise, how do you think that arrangement would score for FR and IC?
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> (Edited to add, I don't have a center listening seat. I have a 4-seater couch that is centered with my TV/center channel, so my PLPC would be directly in between the two middle seats. So if my seats looked like this |_|_|_|_| with the vertical lines being the border between seats, and if we labeled the borders 1,2,3,4,5, then according to Audyssey's recommended mic pattern, I would first put the mic at the 3rd line, then the 4th, then the 2nd, then in front of the 2nd, in front of the 3rd, and finally, in front of the 4th.)


I tried many setup patterns like the one you reference and was not very happy with the results. It is possible to get better Image Clarity while still getting reasonably good frequency response evening across a listening area that size by using one of the more broadly-spaced patterns with several measurement points clustered at the center of the pattern. This would apply in your situation as well, without a centered Listening Position.

Here is a link to a related thread that you might take a look at - see *Part 2* of the first post.. It discusses reasons for focusing on image clarity and frequency response at the listening position, mainly because it is rare that there is more than one person in the room who even cares about good sound. And there is a new mic setup pattern we have been experimenting with, referred to as the Right Triangle pattern., which has given very good results.

If you are in the mode of experimenting with Audyssey mic setup patterns, you might give that pattern at least one try just to see if you like it. With your PLPC being slightly offset on your sofa, you might try it centered on the point where your head would normally be, even though that is not in the center of the speaker pattern. How well that offset will work will depend on the type of speakers, your room, many factors. Using that pattern at the center of the sofa will give similar results. Just something for you to consider.


----------



## edgeh2o

AudiocRaver said:


> because it is rare that there is more than one person in the room who even cares about good sound


So true! Haha. My friends like to pretend they care about SQ, but none of them actually own speakers and they have no excuse, financially, for not getting some, sooo.... :scratch:

Many thanks for the reply and the link.


----------



## asere

Guys I know XT32 is better than XT but does XT32 extend the subs frequency more than with using just XT? Besides placement which that also helps.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## AustinJerry

asere said:


> Guys I know XT32 is better than XT but does XT32 extend the subs frequency more than with using just XT? Besides placement which that also helps.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Room corection technologies can smooth a speaker's response, but they cannot extent a speaker's response.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Thanks, Jerry. It is my understanding that Audyssey, XT and XT32, determines the LF cutoff point for the sub and will not boost below that point. I do not know the product's LF capability limit for doing any smoothing.


----------



## AustinJerry

AudiocRaver said:


> Thanks, Jerry. It is my understanding that Audyssey, XT and XT32, determines the LF cutoff point for the sub and will not boost below that point. I do not know the product's LF capability limit for doing any smoothing.


My understanding is that Audyssey does nothing below a speaker's F3 point, boost or filters. I think the OP was wondering if, for example, his sub only goes down to 35Hz, that using Audyssey would magically lower the sub's output to, say, 20Hz. That is not going to happen.


----------



## asere

I have always measured around 2ft of distance for each mic placement. From what I am reading here you can do Near-Field and 8 pt basic set up but within inches. When you say measure within 2,3,6 inches you mean literally inches? What are the benefits in doing so vs the 2ft distance?


----------



## AudiocRaver

Audyssey has never been known for its ability to give tight imaging and good sound stage results, at least not using the normally prescribed mic setup patterns. A tighter mic setup pattern, yes inches, can potentially provide very tight imaging and an excellent sound stage. Try it and see what you think.


----------



## asere

AudiocRaver said:


> Audyssey has never been known for its ability to give tight imaging and good sound stage results, at least not using the normally prescribed mic setup patterns. A tighter mic setup pattern, yes inches, can potentially provide very tight imaging and an excellent sound stage. Try it and see what you think.


Interesting. Yes I will definitely try that. I'm receiving my mic stand and adapter tomorrow.


----------



## JimShaw

asere said:


> I have always measured around 2ft of distance for each mic placement. From what I am reading here you can do Near-Field and 8 pt basic set up but within inches. When you say measure within 2,3,6 inches you mean literally inches? What are the benefits in doing so vs the 2ft distance?


Yes, literally inches. I run all my spots three inches apart. For me, it was a noticible difference from the Audyssey's two feet apart measurements


----------



## asere

JimShaw said:


> Yes, literally inches. I run all my spots three inches apart. For me, it was a noticible difference from the Audyssey's two feet apart measurements


When I did audyssey with the camera tripod on the floor but raised to reach ear level on the couch and at 2ft apart I couldn't feel the sub on the couch. I then started to place the camera tripod measuring 2ft apart but this time measuring only on the couch and not in front and I could feel the sub on the couch. I will definitely try the only inches approach and with a mic stand for better measurements.


----------



## FargateOne

JimShaw said:


> Yes, literally inches. I run all my spots three inches apart. For me, it was a noticible difference from the Audyssey's two feet apart measurements


I followed Audiocraver advices about inches distances with YPAO (4 in my cas with triangle hypothenuse) and it made a huge difference in SS&I. Try it - you will love it , pretty sure.
:sn:

P.S.:the back of my chair stops at shoulder height; no back head rest (free tranlation here from french!)


----------



## asere

I did notice with Audyssey off and just using the distance and speaker level that Auddysey set I could hear and feel the sub more. Example with a bass quitar I could clearly hear it vs with Audyssey on it was very subtle. It's almost like Audyssey took the life from the sub. I even upped the trim of -3 to 0. 
Has anyone experienced this?


----------



## chashint

asere said:


> I did notice with Audyssey off and just using the distance and speaker level that Auddysey set I could hear and feel the sub more. Example with a bass quitar I could clearly hear it vs with Audyssey on it was very subtle. It's almost like Audyssey took the life from the sub. I even upped the trim of -3 to 0. Has anyone experienced this?


While some people report near miracle improvements using EQ there is also a sizable number of people that report the results using your exact wording.
I have a Pioneer AVR and the auto EQ it uses improves the clarity of voices but pretty much kills the bass resulting in a very thin forward sounding presentation.
I have been using Direct Mode which bypasses most of the EQ for several years. 
If you can move speakers and subs around so the EQ is not fighting huge swings it may help but many of us are very limited on placement options.


----------



## asere

chashint said:


> If you can move speakers and subs around so the EQ is not fighting huge swings it may help but many of us are very limited on placement options.


In moving the sub around I try to place it at the best location per REW. If the location prior to audyssey has minimal swings then audyssey shouldn't have to correct much therefore it shouldn't down the bass.


----------



## bkeeler10

asere said:


> In moving the sub around I try to place it at the best location per REW. If the location prior to audyssey has minimal swings then audyssey shouldn't have to correct much therefore it shouldn't down the bass.


You may have a fairly smooth response before Audyssey, but is it flat? Or is there a general trend of rising levels as you get down below that 80-120 Hz range? Audyssey will flatten that out in addition to mitigating dips and peaks. That's the one problem with Audyssey in the bass department -- it will equalize out your room gain. Dirac and Anthem's ARC, in particular, recognize that a flat response from the highs all the way down to the bottom end sounds anemic and therefore their target responses have a rise in response in the low end instead of a table-flat response. This sounds more natural to most people. In addition, both Dirac and ARC allow you to change the low end of the target curve to suit your tastes. That is IMO a big failing of Audyssey (unless you have Pro, of course).

Edit: I use Audyssey myself, but I also have a miniDSP 2x4 that allows me to dial a rising low end back into the response after Audyssey is run. I like it better that way.


----------



## asere

bkeeler10 said:


> You may have a fairly smooth response before Audyssey, but is it flat? Or is there a general trend of rising levels as you get down below that 80-120 Hz range? Audyssey will flatten that out in addition to mitigating dips and peaks. That's the one problem with Audyssey in the bass department -- it will equalize out your room gain. Dirac and Anthem's ARC, in particular, recognize that a flat response from the highs all the way down to the bottom end sounds anemic and therefore their target responses have a rise in response in the low end instead of a table-flat response. This sounds more natural to most people. In addition, both Dirac and ARC allow you to change the low end of the target curve to suit your tastes. That is IMO a big failing of Audyssey (unless you have Pro, of course).
> 
> Edit: I use Audyssey myself, but I also have a miniDSP 2x4 that allows me to dial a rising low end back into the response after Audyssey is run. I like it better that way.


As far as I remember yes there are rising and dips. With no audyssey sub losses spl around 30hz and ON at 20hz before it losses spl. What I have observed is without audyssey the bass is happening and is tight. Even the low end it vibrates compared to audyssey ON.


----------



## willis7469

House curve rules. Audyssey does not. Flat curve(irony?) is just that. Flat. A little trim up goes a long way after Audyssey. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## asere

willis7469 said:


> House curve rules. Audyssey does not. Flat curve(irony?) is just that. Flat. A little trim up goes a long way after Audyssey.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Audyssey set the trim to -3. With a bump to 0 or +3 it does nothing. A -3 without audyssey the bass stands out.


----------



## bkeeler10

Do you have REW graphs of pre-Audyssey and post-Audyssey measurements that you could post? It would be interesting to see what's going on graphically. I'm surprised that you don't detect a difference after raising the sub trim 6 dB, so maybe include a REW measurement post-Audyssey with trim at -3 dB as Audyssey sets it, and then another with trim at +3 dB.


----------



## asere

bkeeler10 said:


> Do you have REW graphs of pre-Audyssey and post-Audyssey measurements that you could post? It would be interesting to see what's going on graphically. I'm surprised that you don't detect a difference after raising the sub trim 6 dB, so maybe include a REW measurement post-Audyssey with trim at -3 dB as Audyssey sets it, and then another with trim at +3 dB.


 I will post REW graphs once I redo Audyssey again. I am going to use a mic stand next time vs the tripod. 
From what I can remember from graphs in the past is like I mentioned before the sub starts to drop at 30hz without Audyssey and with the Audyssey boost it drops around the 20hz. I feel and hear the bass more without Audyssey. 
Maybe the mic stand and measuring in inches vs ft will improve it.


----------



## shaolin95

Hello guys
I have three subs. Two hsu vtf 15 and an older mfw15. I thought about connecting the two identical ones to one lfe output and the mwf15 to the other.
Sounds good? It so, should I set the two so combined that hit 75hz just like the single one or higher?

This is an onkyo nr3010 with xt32.
Thanks!!!


----------



## willis7469

I also have 3 subs and depending on your overall target spl(I go to 80ish) you'll want to set each one for 72-73 individually. The thing of importance is to make sure the phase is right. Otherwise all the multi-sub benefits are lost from cancellation. I usually get one to blend with the mains, and then run the lfe tone, and adjust the phase of the second sub while watching the spl. When you find the most output, then adjust the third subs phase. At this point you might have to back down the trim since you will probably have started with phase at 0, and if they were out of phase at that point they'll be in phase now changing the response. 0/180 switches make this easier. I don't know about XT32's intricacies so I may have just told you junk, but it works pretty good for my manual setup, after I run audyssey. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## shaolin95

willis7469 said:


> I also have 3 subs and depending on your overall target spl(I go to 80ish) you'll want to set each one for 72-73 individually. The thing of importance is to make sure the phase is right. Otherwise all the multi-sub benefits are lost from cancellation. I usually get one to blend with the mains, and then run the lfe tone, and adjust the phase of the second sub while watching the spl. When you find the most output, then adjust the third subs phase. At this point you might have to back down the trim since you will probably have started with phase at 0, and if they were out of phase at that point they'll be in phase now changing the response. 0/180 switches make this easier. I don't know about XT32's intricacies so I may have just told you junk, but it works pretty good for my manual setup, after I run audyssey.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My subs are all right behind my couch next to each other so still use the phase for the setting that gives the most output in each one?
Thanks!


----------



## willis7469

It might not change that much if they're all next to each other but my ocd would require that I checked. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lesmor

Hi
Apologies if this has been asked already
I am just about to try a close positioned Audyssey mic calibration using Mic Pattern 101 

Is there any reason why, after PLP centre position1 it is not followed by position 2 then 5,6,7,& 8 as they are at the same horizontal level as PLPC
Then move the mic up 3" and do positions 3 & 4 ?

This would save having to alter the microphone so often and perhaps be more accurate.

If I am missing something then fine I am more than happy to follow the instructions to the letter.

Edit:
Disregard this message as I have now carried out the procedure as directed


----------



## AudiocRaver

Apologies for not getting back to you sooner.

There is no reason for the order itself, other than the first ever-so-critical measurement. Your logic is sound. Hope you got good results.


----------



## lesmor

AudiocRaver said:


> Apologies for not getting back to you sooner.
> 
> There is no reason for the order itself, other than the first ever-so-critical measurement. Your logic is sound. Hope you got good results.


No problem
I had in fact used the 101 method a couple of times in the past and either totally misread the instructions it or it has been rewritten since then as I had been doing it completely wrong.
This time it has given very good IC results using the recommended Toy Story 3 to assess the difference.
Haven't got round to measuring the FR yet.
Just about to check the Mic Setup Pattern Update

Many thanks for this excellent thread and I appreciate the work that has gone in to keeping it current


----------



## asere

When I used XT is seemed to tame the sub too much. This was with one sub. I then learned one of the amps on my sub went bad and running off of one of two amps. By the time I got it fixed I had another identical sub. Now with two subs running. XT is really nice. I blamed XT when it was the sub at the time that was faulty. 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## lesmor

AudiocRaver said:


> Apologies for not getting back to you sooner.
> 
> There is no reason for the order itself, other than the first ever-so-critical measurement. Your logic is sound. Hope you got good results.


Well I am please that I revisited this thread and as previously stated realised I totally mis read/understood the mike positioning.

I have tried a couple more movies since completing the calibration and very happy with the results and IC
I hope to run some FR with REW this weekend and take it from there.
Depending on the results I might move on to the triangle method.

I am using a new brand to the industry with newly designed speakers and subs, designed by a Norwegian company which sounds fantastic.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Glad to hear you are happy with the result.


----------



## FargateOne

The triangle method made a big audible improvement for me.


----------



## asere

FargateOne said:


> The triangle method made a big audible improvement for me.


Could you please point the way for the triangle method? I'd like to possibly try it.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## lesmor

FargateOne said:


> The triangle method made a big audible improvement for me.


Was that after trying out Method 101 ?


----------



## lesmor

asere said:


> Could you please point the way for the triangle method? I'd like to possibly try it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...e-setup-mic-position-audyssey-dirac-live.html


----------



## AudiocRaver

Thank you, lesmor.

I have just added a link to the Triangle Method mic calibration technique from the end of *Section 7 - The Room EQ Process and Recommended Mic Patterns* and from new Post #11 of the Guide thread.


----------



## asere

lesmor said:


> http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...e-setup-mic-position-audyssey-dirac-live.html


Thank you!


----------



## willis7469

I like the triangle method as well. I had an anomaly show up though. When listening in stereo, it seems like the balance is shifted to the left side slightly. When I go between stereo and direct I can hear the subtle shift back to center. I'm going to recalibrate and try again. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AudiocRaver

willis7469 said:


> I like the triangle method as well. I had an anomaly show up though. When listening in stereo, it seems like the balance is shifted to the left side slightly. When I go between stereo and direct I can hear the subtle shift back to center. I'm going to recalibrate and try again.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Interesting. I can see the triangle method perhaps being a little more sensitive to an imbalance like that, or perhaps accentuating it. The idea was to make the mic placement less critical at each of the points of the calibration for getting good SS&I results. A little left-right error in mic placement would stand out, though, I can see. Thus the use of the mic stand as the mic positioning guide.

If you run it again, pay particular attention to the 1st mic position and the L-R position of the triangle relative to it.


----------



## FargateOne

lesmor said:


> Was that after trying out Method 101 ?


Yes


----------



## xyobgyn

Designing a new room, and searched a little in the thread for answer to question, but don't see any new developments.

In the set up guide intro, there is a FAQ regarding using the internet and a computer in the network to save Audyssey settings after a calibration, presumably for back up, and for comparison to see which set up one might prefer.

I'm designing a room with two rows of seating. Primarily I will use the front row, so I'd like to wire and install 4 ATMOS speakers (2 in front and 2 behind that row), the back pair to be centered between the rows of seats.

However, when I have people in the back row of seats, I'd like to have an easy way to load up a second calibration that uses a third pair of ceiling ATMOS speakers (2 behind the second row of seating) that I can manually switch to, and turn off the middle pair of ATMOS speakers. This would slightly compromise the front row of seat experience, but not terribly, and it would allow the back row of seats to still get the ATMOS experience of 4 channels.

In the years since the introduction of this thread and the set up FAQ section, does anyone know of any SS processors that have built in capability to store different Audyssey calibrations to flip between them to facilitate a scenario like mine? 

I am aware that there is some cost in having 2 extra pair of ATMOS speakers, possibly an extra pair of amplification depending on how I manage the switch, but I'm not asking about that aspect, nor really seeking guidance on its wisdom. I think eventually there will be enough processing power to accommodate 6-8 ATMOS speakers at non-Trinnov prices, so I don't mind building for the future, 

Thanks in advance. 

Alex Lipowich
(OB/Gyn by day & night, HT and Motorsports in-between)


----------



## lesmor

@xyobgyn
The Denon 7200WA allows you to save and load configs but unfortunately not on the fly.
It doesn't take that long to do say 5-10 minutes
I know of no other mainstream AVR's that let you do this.


----------



## AudiocRaver

That is my understanding also. A "quick switch" takes several minutes at least.


----------



## xyobgyn

lesmor said:


> The Denon 7200WA allows you to save and load configs but unfortunately not on the fly.
> It doesn't take that long to do say 5-10 minutes
> I know of no other mainstream AVR's that let you do this.





AudiocRaver said:


> That is my understanding also. A "quick switch" takes several minutes at least.


Thank you both. I'm not so much interested in the time it takes, but, rather hoping that there are some relatively mainstream processors that have built in memory to store configurations, even if it takes a bit of time to run through the menus on the processor and choose an alternative, saved in the past, calibration. The question boils down to.... are there processors that can have saved, alternate configurations without resorting to going to the internet, using a separate computer and such to download something from web or hard drive.

I will look into the 7200WA, it sounds promising.

Really, it seems that more people would want this. For example, the people that love wide front speakers in a DTS-X (hope I got that right) coded movie that doesn't offer ATMOS... or, conversely, dumping the wide outs, and using ATMOS when its available.

Alex. (Thanks in advance)


----------



## AudiocRaver

I am pretty sure that the answer is, no, an external PC is required in all cases for Audyssey. I welcome correction If someone knows of a device that does not require that.


----------



## lesmor

None that I know of either

In addition you can connect 13 speakers (9.2.4) at one time to the Denon which gives you wides,but unfortunately it can only play and process 11 channels.
IIRC when using DTS:X you get the wides but lose the Rear Back surrounds or a pair of ceiling speakers this you would need to confirm.
An alternative as a processor only I would look at Marantz which as it comes from the same manufacturer might have the same features as the Denon again you would need to confirm this with a dealer.

I must say though that having saved configurations on my laptop is such a great feature and as it is done wirelessly is very convenient.
I take your point that this is not how you want it implemented but even Anthem ARC and Dirac use a laptop for storing configurations.


----------



## AudiocRaver

With Dirac, 2 to 4 configurations are saved in memory within that processing unit for instantaneous switching in between. More than that requires an external PC.


----------



## bkeeler10

Well, if you're looking to use Anthem's ARC in their receivers or processors, you can store as many as you want as files on your computer However, the current lineup of receivers will store up to four different calibrations on the receiver itself. You associate a calibration with a virtual input, so once you've set up multiple virtual inputs with the same physical input and assigned a different calibration to each one, switching between calibrations is as simple as switching "sources"

Wayne, it is too bad you've never been able to dig into ARC like you have Dirac and Audyssey (at least I assume you haven't since, to my knowledge, you haven't written about it). I was hoping when Peter Loeser reviewed the Anthem receiver last year, it would also pass through your hands for this purpose. It would be very interesting to get your take on it, given your experience and expertise in this area.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Good suggestion, Brian. I would like to give it a try sometime. My understanding of their design philosophy is that it is okay to equalize at low frequencies with minimum phase filters and that mids and highs should be left alone. I believe that, with care, equalization can help throughout the frequency range, and I believe the Dirac team has demonstrated this very effectively. None of this is news to you, of course.

I would like to see what the Anthem can do as it is intended to work. For that reason, I would like to get a hold of it sometime.


----------



## willis7469

AudiocRaver said:


> Interesting. I can see the triangle method perhaps being a little more sensitive to an imbalance like that, or perhaps accentuating it. The idea was to make the mic placement less critical at each of the points of the calibration for getting good SS&I results. A little left-right error in mic placement would stand out, though, I can see. Thus the use of the mic stand as the mic positioning guide.
> 
> 
> 
> If you run it again, pay particular attention to the 1st mic position and the L-R position of the triangle relative to it.




I feel like my initial placement was good, but when I rerun it, I'll definitely pay close attention to this. Since I've noticed the anomaly I've gone back to PLIIx music. Finding time during summer to run audyssey is difficult with 3 kids at home. And recalibrating 3 subs and a BFD with audyssey is.....fun? Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bkeeler10

AudiocRaver said:


> Good suggestion, Brian. I would like to give it a try sometime. My understanding of their design philosophy is that it is okay to equalize at low frequencies with minimum phase filters and that mids and highs should be left alone. I believe that, with care, equalization can help throughout the frequency range ...


ARC on the receivers can EQ up to 5 kHz (no further due to microphone response anomalies and polar responses according to them). One can set the upper limit as low as 200 Hz, but the the default and recommended setting is to let it EQ to 5 kHz. 

The older Statement pre-pro products can be set to correct all the way up to 20 kHz, but the recommendation there is also to leave it at the default 5 kHz.


----------



## AudiocRaver

There is clearly much for me to learn about Anthem's approach. Thanks for the nudge.


----------



## Vinbarbera

Hi, I signed today, after I read the superlative driving on adissey, congratulations.
I have some information to ask, I have a room 4.7 x 3.7 m with 2 chairs positioned in front of 50 centimeters to a sliding wardrobe, Speakers B & W 685 front, 686 rear, central HTM62, M1 roof (ATMOS) and sub ASW- 610 all driven by one DANON AVR-X4200.
I tried various measurements with multi xt 32 from Wide1A pattern to Wide 1H is the one recommended 8 points of Audyssey, but I always rumble problems on the central difffusore. the curves that come out have a low up on all the speakers except the center which is more linear, what can I do to fix this problem ... this rumbling is very pronounced in the movie Pacific Rim opening scene, I use it as a test.
The photos of the room attached


----------



## AudiocRaver

As a quick test, if you

run Audyssey calibration as you have
then turn off your sub for a quick listening test
does the rumble go away? (turn the sub back on after this little test)

Here is an educated guess. A rumble probably means that part of the low frequencies are being absorbed in the room, and that the mic pattern includes one or more measurements where those frequencies are weak, so Audyssey compensates by increasing those frequencies, but the increase is too much and you get the rumble. I suspect the wardrobe is at least partially to blame.

Possibilities (of course you are limited by your room):
Move the sub.
Move the wardrobe.
Move the seats away from the wardrobe.
Run calibration with more centered (left/right) mic calibration points behind you (closer to the wardrobe) and see what result you get.
Run calibration with more centered (left/right) mic calibration points in front of you (farther from the wardrobe) and see what result you get.


----------



## Vinbarbera

thanks for the quick response, the test of sub I've already done, the only way to eliminate the rumble is when I unplugged the woofers from the central speaker. the closet unfortunately you can not move, if I am going too much to the front area have lost effect or quality of the speakers? Try again to make Audyssey with PLP as close to the front, and further away from the closet, approaching the front speakers reduces the size of the triangle and I have to bring the L and R speakers between them? B & W speakers have plugs bass reflex full and half should use them? making the measurement with the speaker covers we change? I can use the Audyssey microphone with raw software to do some graphics, if you advise me some microphone? Such as audio tracks or film recommended to test the system in the best possible way? for my room which I recommend measuring layout, consider that they are always listening to everything myself so the priority is to PLP?


----------



## primetimeguy

Vinbarbera said:


> thanks for the quick response, the test of sub I've already done, the only way to eliminate the rumble is when I unplugged the woofers from the central speaker. the closet unfortunately you can not move, if I am going too much to the front area have lost effect or quality of the speakers? Try again to make Audyssey with PLP as close to the front, and further away from the closet, approaching the front speakers reduces the size of the triangle and I have to bring the L and R speakers between them? B & W speakers have plugs bass reflex full and half should use them? making the measurement with the speaker covers we change? I can use the Audyssey microphone with raw software to do some graphics, if you advise me some microphone? Such as audio tracks or film recommended to test the system in the best possible way? for my room which I recommend measuring layout, consider that they are always listening to everything myself so the priority is to PLP?


Do you have Dynamic EQ turned on by chance? If so, try turning that off?


----------



## Vinbarbera

primetimeguy said:


> Do you have Dynamic EQ turned on by chance? If so, try turning that off?


Of course, the first test...


----------



## AudiocRaver

Vinbarbera said:


> ...the only way to eliminate the rumble is when I unplugged the woofers from the central speaker...


Could you explain this, please?



> ...if I am going too much to the front area have lost effect or quality of the speakers?


Not necessarily. Our Two-Channel Speaker Setup Guide can give you an idea of some of the possibilities.



> Try again to make Audyssey with PLP as close to the front, and further away from the closet, approaching the front speakers reduces the size of the triangle and I have to bring the L and R speakers between them?


The equilateral triangle is rarely a good idea for soundstage and imaging (SS&I). Move the PLP forward, leave the speakers wide, play with toe-in to get best SS&I, all without Audyssey, then use Audyssen to even out frequency response and improve SS&I even further.



> B & W speakers have plugs bass reflex full and half should use them?


I would try them.


----------

