# REW and MCACC



## Arvtechman (Jul 9, 2013)

Hey all. I've taken measurements in the past with REW. At that time I had a completely different setup. I upgraded this last month and I'm looking to take some measurements again. What am I trying to accomplish? What we all are, Sonic fidelity!  I'm hoping to achieve a smooth response and get my moneys worth really. I spent a lot on this new system and want to squeeze every penny out of it. That said I've spent my time researching on Pio's MCACC. I'm working with the SC-75. There are a lot more configuration options with MCACC then what I had previously. I won't say that I'm unhappy with the auto-calibration. I did find it rather bright... I've played with and researched enough that I feel I've got about a middle of the line setup from MCACC. I could probably get a little more from it with additional tweaking but for the time being I'd like to dedicate a memory bank to my own configuration leveraging REW and seeing how the results differ.

I have a typical REW setup; Behringer ECM8000 through a Presonus FireStudio and using the ol' RadioShack SPL Meter. Before jumping into right in graph results I have some questions. I won't be able to take measurements until next week when I'm back in town as well.

So my questions... it seems from reading around that REW is really geared towards users tuning subwoofers. I read a lot of posts and it's mostly people discussing bass. The second most discussion is fronts and blending the sub (again bass). I run the 80hz cross with speakers set small setup and I'm excited to get measurements with my new system, but what about the center, or surrounds? I haven't found a lot of topics discussing those. I imagine the same rules apply? Is that true? Also, is there anyone that wouldn't mind a good private message conversation concerning MCACC and REW? I'd really like to understand how the measurements and results taken by REW can translate into what I should be doing in MCACC. It would be great to have some discussion on this topic before I begin measurements. So who has the MCACC and REW knowledge around here? I'd love to pick your brain.

As always, thanks for reading.
-Austin


----------



## JohnM (Apr 11, 2006)

Subs get a lot of measurement attention for a few reasons: they are amenable to EQ, there tend to be more placement options for them than main speakers and the benefits of making changes are often dramatic. All channels can be measured of course, and REW is a full range measurement tool. Measurement is a great help in finding the best placement. EQ can be relevant for any speaker, but it is much trickier above the bass range, as measurements at the listening position are affected by many room effects which EQ cannot address and/or which change a great deal over quite small distances. Nonetheless it can be very beneficial to make tonal changes through EQ for the front and centre channels (centre especially for the vocal range), somewhat less so for surrounds but the better the surround channel responses match the main speakers the better effects are steered.


----------



## Arvtechman (Jul 9, 2013)

Thanks for the reply John. As much as I understand REW, I know there are parts of it I do not. I love this hobby, but sometimes it can be overwhelming to say the least. I spend time researching till I get burned out that everything is a maybe. I'm the type that likes to deal in absolutes. While there are base rules, it still seems everything is open. I'm referring to proper speaker placement, room treatment, EQ, etc. Each room, environment, speaker, and condition are different. I get that. What REW brings to the table though is a visual perspective in an auditory domain. It would be nice to have a program that is based around room design. Take the game "The Sims" for example; you build the walls, you place the furniture, etc. Clearly that is just one small aspect to the game, but take that aspect and create a room designer for audio. Something that shows the effects of moving a speaker while taking into account the room measurements, layout, and surfaces.

So the program knows your room dimensions. As you move the speakers about it tracks the location in the room by the distance from it's closest surface in all four directions. While moving the speaker it's also outputting sound waves. The waves start out a deep color, but as the waves hit surfaces or objects in the room (based on the surface and object material that you input into the program) the waves get lighter in color or dark based off reflection and absorption properties. That would be mode1. Mode2 would be the same concept but the sound wave size can now be changed by the hz you select and it will demonstrate the wave flow from speaker to seating position to determine if by moving the seat, or speaker, if the listener is in a null zone or peak. The hz selector in mode2 would have to exist in mode1 as well because surfaces and objects have different reflective and absorption properties across the hz range.

I don't believe there is a program that I have described, and maybe there are calculations that I am not aware of that would give me the above information. Sometimes I feel as much as I know. There is a lot I don't. I realize this is a little off topic from my thread subject, but I will get back to that. Just wanted to throw this out and vent a little. Sometimes I just get overwhelmed with it all. I need something visual. Is there smoke I can fill a room with that will react to sound waves so I can physically see what is happening! Haha. :huh:

On topic though, anyone that has used REW specifically to submit values into MCACC would be a great help.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

Arvtechman said:


> I'm the type that likes to deal in absolutes. While there are base rules, it still seems everything is open. I'm referring to proper speaker placement, room treatment, EQ, etc. Each room, environment, speaker, and condition are different. I get that.


Well, in audio, much like life, there are no such absolutes. There _are_ some very high degrees of certainty though. Perhaps the main one you are missing, is "preference". As in _yours_. John, I or anyone else, will be of scant help there. Especially remotely! 



Arvtechman said:


> I don't believe there is a program that I have described


Correct. Because such a "program" could not possibly know the exact, frequency dependent 3D radiation characteristics of _your_ particular speakers. Nor, could it account for the lossiness/reflectiveness and diffractive properties of each particular surface of your particular room and it's contents. 
And the list goes on and on. 
You want a simple, absolute solution, to a problem far more complex than you understand. Hence, no program.  (those "calculator: things are mostly nonsense). But the news is not all bad. Because...



Arvtechman said:


> What REW brings to the table though is a visual perspective in an auditory domain.


Bingo. REW is the "program" telling you exactly what is taking place, with _your_ speaker(s), at one pressure point, in _your_ room. The key is, accuracy of the measurement...and how it pertains to "sound", to your 2 ears. That part can get tricky.. Especially for those with lots of preconceived, impossible to "unlearn" notions.
Keep an open mind, John is giving good advice.
If you are "generally" happy with the sound now, then perhaps only a minor amount of tweaking will get _you_ "there". EQ should be applied Judiciously. Starting foremost with the bass range.

cheers


----------



## Arvtechman (Jul 9, 2013)

Here are my steps I plan to take this Saturday. Please give any advice you believe will benefit me.









1 - Couch is placed using rule of thirds for the room.
2 - Surround Sides are 2 ft above listening position. All 4 to Di-Pole (mono switch is available).
3 - Ensure Subwoofer Phase is set to 0 degree
4 - Perform the subwoofer crawl to determine best subwoofer position with just one sub.
5 - Place the sub2 against the opposite wall in the opposite position of sub1
6 - Use circular bullseye level on front left and right to ensure the spikes are properly adjusted.
7 - Turn off sub, turn off all calibrations on Pioneer, raw signal to front left with the speaker set to SMALL 80hz xover. Put front left near center of the room against the wall. Slowly move speaker out from the wall. Find the best spot for bass response in relation to the speaker against the back wall.
8 - With the distance in step 6 in mind place both left and right speakers apart with equal distances from the back wall. Determine the best sound by adjusting each front left and front right speaker for distance in relation to their side wall. Keep the golden rule in mind (distance from back wall and side wall should never be equal for each speaker.
9- Once final speaker location with a flat response for front left and right is determined adjust both speakers for toe in.
10 - Recheck with circular bullseye level to ensure speakers are level in final positions.

With the steps above complete, my subwoofers and front towers should have proper placement. When adjusting my fronts I kept the following in mind.
*Distance from back wall has a larger impact on bass and soundstage depth and focus
*Distance from side wall has a larger impact on midbass and soundstage expansiveness and tonal balance
*Distance from side and back wall should be unequal (golden rule)
*Toe in will depend on speaker separation distance in order to maintain a preferred wide soundstage.

11 - Plug in setup microphone and run FULL AUTO on MCACC. What this will do:
*Mem1 will now be symmetry (front right and left are eq'd the same and phased the same)
*Mem2 will now be full chn adj (every speaker has personal settings)-My preferred setting
*Mem3 will now be front align - (all speakers aligned to match the fronts)
*Speakers will be reset to large.
12 - Change speakers back to small 80hz xover and re-run with the option to keep speaker settings for Mem2.
13 - I will listen to validate but most likely delete Mem1 and Mem3. Copy Mem 2 to Mem1 and Mem3.
14 - Manually write down and fill in speaker distance and level calibration settings from Mem 2 and populate those into Mem4, Mem5, and Mem6.
15 - Rerun Advanced EQ against Mem1, Mem2, and Mem3 with different reverb MS response times. Pio recommends 30-50ms. The options are 0-20ms, 10-30ms, 20-40ms, 30-50ms, 40-60ms, 50-70ms, and 60-80ms. Try Mem1 at 20-40ms, leave Mem2 at 30-50ms, try Mem3 at 40-60ms. Determine if any direction sounds better and move that direction until satisfied.

This should now have Mems1-3 configured with the best built in calibration setup the system can provide given my room and speaker placement. Now it's time to adjust Mems4-6. Remember 4-6 only have distance, level calibration, and speaker setting size (small 80hz xover) configured. Now is when we need to look at all available options that MCACC can provide and determine where REW can be used in relation to the settings we can set.

I'm going to post this in my next reply but I wanted to get the above posted for anyone to begin looking at and providing any recommendations.


----------



## Arvtechman (Jul 9, 2013)

Options available in MCACC:
Auto calibration applies with the following options:
*Symmetry - each left and right channel pair in the system is calibrated together
*All Chn Adj - no weight is given, each channel separate
*Front Align - sets all channels to match fronts

*Speaker Size Setting* - Small Or Large with xOver adjustments (This applies to all Mem banks not an individual setting)
*Speaker Level Adjust*
*Speaker Distance* - Down To An Inch
*Ambiet Noise Check* - takes into account regular room db level
*Speaker Phase Check* - ensures wiring, but not just wiring.
*Acoustic Calibration EQ (EQ Pro)- *9 Band Graphic EQ
*Standing Wave Control and/or Standing Wave Multi Point Check *- 3 available frequency adjustment slots
*Phase Control* - ensures sound arrives at the listening position in phase for all speakers
*Full Band Phase Control (Group Delay)* - this ensures phase characteristics of an individual speaker. Meaning a tower that has high, mid, low. it listens and adjusts to ensure the towers range arrives equally for the individual speaker.
*Reverb MS Response Time *
Worth noting an *X-curve *can be applied.

So if we break all these automatic adjustments that MCACC makes what can we do manually to provide the same data? Lets look.

*Speaker Size Setting* - I will set to Small with 80hz xover. Let me subs do their job. This will also help with low frequency reflections because now my towers are not producing any.
*Speaker Level Adjust* - use the handy radioshack spl meter to adjust this to 85db.
*Speaker Distance* - use the good ol' tape measurer
*Ambient Noise Check* - I can do it, but no place to input into MCACC (No big deal as it's only used by the system during auto calibration. This has no weight post test).
*Speaker Phase Check* - red to red, black to black addle:
*Acoustic Calibration EQ (EQ Pro)* - running sweeps with rew will give us frequency responses. if we want a flat response then run individual speaker sweeps and adjust eq on the Pioneer accordingly.
*Standing Wave Control* - Run sweeps in rew and create waterfalls. Determine your standing waves and make those frequency adjustments in the Pioneer accordingly.

*Phase control, full band phase control, and reverb MS response time*...I don't know how to measure this externally and set in the Pioneer...

Does all the above sound accurate and correct? It would be cool if all of us combine can create a step by step guide for using REW to configuring MCACC. Thanks for reading.


----------



## GCG (Aug 22, 2013)

One thing to remember is that Pioneer tosses LFE content above the crossover point in the AVR. It isn't channeled to the main speakers. Not an enormous loss - not usually much there - but worth considering. For that reason I'm kinda glad my surrounds force me to cross at 100 or above.

BTW - have you seen this at AVS - AVS forum Official Pioneer Mcacc Thread


----------



## GCG (Aug 22, 2013)

Also, Pioneer only sets level for the Sub, no EQ, and it tries to set it level with the rest of the system - no bass boost. You may want to EQ the Sub(s) flat prior to MCACC and re-EQ to your house curve (if any) afterward. That's my current plan. Going to audition an SC-72 tonight. (anticipating an SC-71 purchase)


----------



## dwaleke (Dec 30, 2013)

Interesting thread. I plan on doing something similar. I don't like what my Pioneer is doing with EQ in my room. For some reason it boosts my 8khz on every speaker by quite a bit. I usually go in afterward and set everything above 5khz to 0. I'm interested to see what I can make happen with REW.

Question for you though. You say you are going to set distances with tape measure. Although that will not account for any delays in the signal chain. REW can measure speaker distances for your full range speakers. Any reason you will not use REW for that?


----------



## GCG (Aug 22, 2013)

@Austin - Your Steps 7 & 8 are very close to the WASP (Wilson Audio Speaker Placement) Method of years past. To narrow the range of positions you might just complete the method.


Start on the back wall and move the speaker toward the room center till the back wall bass reinforcement just begins to noticeably fall off and mark the distance on the floor that the center of the front of the speaker is from the back wall.
Continue to move the speaker toward the center to find the place where the reinforcement drops off completely or nearly so and mark that distance.
Starting in the middle of the range you just created but on the side wall repeat the same process but this time of course moving off the side wall toward center marking as you go again using the center of the front of the speaker as your reference.
Do the same from the other side wall.

Now just try different positions in the two rectangles you just created till you find the sweet spot, set the toe in for imaging and you should be set.


----------



## Arvtechman (Jul 9, 2013)

@GCG
"One thing to remember is that Pioneer tosses LFE content above the crossover point in the AVR. It isn't channeled to the main speakers" - Can you elaborate on this statement? It sounds like your saying when the crossover is set the LFE only plays below the point and the fronts only play above. That would be the goal of the SMALL setting. LARGE sends the signal to the mains and not the LFE channel unless you set your speakers to LARGE with LFE set to PLUS. Then both mains and sub will play.

I did read through a little of that post over at AVS. Unfortunately the thing is 170 pages+ and only about 1 out of 5 pages past the initially 3 have information worth noting. That post needs someone to summarize 

The WASP method is exactly what I'm after in steps 7 & 8. You better described in detail what I will be doing. I'm both excited and worried about doing this. I don't want to find that the speakers sound best 2ft from the back wall and 3ft from the sides... I would lose a lot of screen space and a wide soundstage due to my room dimensions. We will find out Saturday though! :gulp:

@dwaleke
What I was really trying to demonstrate in the manual actions post is that there are multiple ways outside of MCACC to retrieve results that can be input back in. I will end up most likely using the distances from MCACC just because those are highly accurate from what I have found. The results however will be cross checked with a measuring tape and REW as well. I plan to post here as I walk through this over the weekend. I know GCG is fine tuning as well. Maybe we can bounce some data / ideas off each other over the weekend. 

I've been away from home for two weeks so I'm itching to start these tests when I get back. I want to play around with the MS response time because it sounds like that can provide a big difference. It was best described on the AVSforum post but what you are adjusting this value this is how long you want MCACC to, not only listen to the speakers, but allow the room to factor into the EQ. So a high time of 60-80MS would cause your speakers EQ to be greatly effected by the room. Whereas a lower time reduces how long MCACC is listening and thus will EQ more to the speakers than the entire room. I'm not yet ready to drop 2grand on panels for the room so I just have to understand I'm dealing with a setup that is probably more reflective than ideal. I don't really have anything on the walls.


----------



## Chucka (Feb 17, 2014)

GCG said:


> Also, Pioneer only sets level for the Sub, no EQ, and it tries to set it level with the rest of the system - no bass boost. You may want to EQ the Sub(s) flat prior to MCACC and re-EQ to your house curve (if any) afterward. That's my current plan. Going to audition an SC-72 tonight. (anticipating an SC-71 purchase)


Good NEW review of the SC-71 at http://www.soundandvision.com/content/pioneer-elite-sc-71-av-receiver


----------



## dwaleke (Dec 30, 2013)

If you average multiple measurements in REW do the speaker distances get averaged as well?

How does Audyssey or other multipoint measurement systems calculate distances? Do they only use the first position or do they average the distances from the multiple positions of measurement? 

If the ladder then I see that as an advantage to using REW over MCACC to calculate distances.


----------



## GCG (Aug 22, 2013)

Arvtechman said:


> @GCG
> "One thing to remember is that Pioneer tosses LFE content above the crossover point in the AVR. It isn't channeled to the main speakers" - Can you elaborate on this statement? It sounds like your saying when the crossover is set the LFE only plays below the point and the fronts only play above. That would be the goal of the SMALL setting. LARGE sends the signal to the mains and not the LFE channel unless you set your speakers to LARGE with LFE set to PLUS. Then both mains and sub will play.


First, conventional wisdom is that "Plus" opens a sonic bag of cats in the room with too many sources for the same content. I don't and won't use it. Let the sub(s) do what subs do - handle the deep bass and lessen the AVR's amp's load for increased headroom for the remainder of the FR.

That said I have gathered from the above (yes, very lengthy) thread that Pioneer low pass filters the LFE at the selected crossover point. This shouldn't be that distressing as the vast majority of the content in the LFE track (it is a separate track with content that isn't included with, or at least the same as, other channels) "should" be at or below 80HZ anyway. Now there will be the odd sound engineer that'll make a lair out of me but for the most part I believe that's the case.


----------



## GCG (Aug 22, 2013)

If the above is true then it goes something like this:


----------



## Arvtechman (Jul 9, 2013)

I see the point you are making GCG. It's correct and worth knowing. As your graph also indicates the setting isn't a cut, more of an x-over. So a setting of 80hz means the LFE channel will still send signals above 80, but you'll notice a lower db output till it fades off entirely. Which would be logical as as strict cut would cause audible notices. Like you mentioned it is all based on content, but I believe most source material shouldn't be sending material in the 80+ range down the LFE channel. Not saying it doesn't happen. I assume this is your reason for choosing 100 vs 80?


----------



## GCG (Aug 22, 2013)

Actually I'm forced to 100 by my surrounds which have a low end of 78hz (Infifnity SM-65's). I don't get noticeable localization at 100 so all is good.


----------



## Arvtechman (Jul 9, 2013)

@dwaleke
_"How does Audyssey or other multipoint measurement systems calculate distances? Do they only use the first position or do they average the distances from the multiple positions of measurement?"_

My assumption here is that the first measurement is what will calibrate your distance. I would have to run a couple tests to ensure this though. I can answer Saturday.

@GCG
80hz to 100hz, not really major considering. I think you'll be find. In fact, I may play around with this setting myself just to see if the LFE LP has much of an effect.


----------



## Arvtechman (Jul 9, 2013)

So here is my plan for using REW this coming Saturday. It seems my old Polk Monitor 70's weren't nearly as effected by placement as these B&W's are. I noticed a difference between showroom and my home on the B&W's. They will benefit a lot this weekend I believe. When I installed them about a month ago I simply placed them were the Monitor 70's were. No biggie as the break in period is what was occurring those first two weeks. That said here is my REW though process.

When testing I normally will test the room from seating position. I've never really tested a single speaker up close to capture just the results of the speaker. Not sure if I should consider this as a step in my list or not? Regardless I plan to take a test of the following when positional steps complete along the way:
*Front L
*Front L+Sub
*Front R
*Front R+Sub
*Front Left and Front R +Sub. 

Those base tests will be taken each step. My planned steps for tests are:
*Overall test of system before ANY changes.

Start with Subwoofer movement:
*Test with current subwoofer position (front center of room)
Perform subwoofer crawl and adjust by ears.
*Test with Subwoofer in subwoofer crawl placement.
Bring in sub two in opposite wall opposite position placement.
*Test with both subwoofers.

Moving on to Fronts:
*Current Setup Test with two subs properly placed.
*Left Speaker Adjusted From Back Wall Test
*Right Speaker Adjusted From Back Wall Test
*Full Test with back wall adjustments made.
*Left Speaker Adjusted From Side Wall Test
*Right Speaker Adjusted From Side Wall Test
*Full Test with speakers in Front Facing Position with back and side wall adjustments made. 
Adjust Toe In To My Ears liking.
*Final possible position test. Any further changes, indicate what changed, and test.

All tests will be performed from listening position. At least that is my plan. Maybe during the final position placement I should consider multiple positions in the room for testing? If I do multiple points in the room what are some key points I should consider?


----------



## Arvtechman (Jul 9, 2013)

3 hours till I board the plane home. Ready for Saturday.


----------



## Arvtechman (Jul 9, 2013)

I would say I'm about half way through. I spent a lot of time just listening between a couple steps. I definitely did not measure as many times as I thought I would. It just didn't seem practical when I woke up and started this morning. That said here is what I have accomplished: 

1 - I moved the listening position back about a foot and a half to align with the rule of thirds. 

2 - I did the subwoofer crawl and found that front center of the room my sub sounded best. It wasn't overly boomy and I could make out details in bass lines. This is where I had the sub before I started. No real change here. 

3 - I brought in the second sub. I placed it center back wall directly opposite of sub one and wow. The brands are not the same but it made a huge difference. What it corrected was evening out the bass in the room. I couldn't locate my sub before and it blended well with my fronts, but adding the second sub seemed to take the blending a step further. I also noticed when standing up and walking around the room that the bass was even whereas before there was pockets. This doesn't matter as much since I really only care about the listening position. It now sounds smoother with a little more punch I can feel. 

4 - I placed the towers. I first placed them firing straight forward. I actually like zero toe in on the speakers. This is where I sat down and listened to music for about 45 minutes. I really liked them firing forward, but I could notice on a few songs that the vocals sounded too stretched. I then decided it was best to toe in. How I toed in was by marking the outside front corner of each speaker. I wanted that to be my main mark. I then toed the speaker in slightly with what I felt was best. I then took the front corner point I marked, drew a line horizontally in front of the speaker, and measured back towards the speakers opposite corner from the line. I found I toed in by 2.5". I then marked and repeated the process on the opposite speaker. Before toeing in here were my measurements; measuring from the tweeter to the back wall - 24" and 13" from the side wall. Each speaker is the exact same. I had the speaker setting set to small when I made my placement adjustments. To be perfectly honest I did not notice a drastic change the more I went into the room. I noticed a change when I was 6+" from the wall, but after that it was minor. Though it wasn't drastic I did feel that making these measurements and following the rule of not placing the speaker equal distances from back and side walls did help. Combining that with the toe in :clap: 

5 - Next I ran full auto on MCACC. This took positions 1,2,3 and set to symmetry, all chn adj, and front align. This is where I noticed the biggest difference. MCACC seemed to equalize better with proper speaker placement. What I noticed was that all chn adj didn't come out as the clear winner. I actually enjoyed all three adjustments. Through multiple songs though I found that I still prefer all chn adj. My conclusion is that all chn adj has more authentic vocals. The music sounds more realistic to my ears. The others sound pleasing, but something about all chn adj sounds better. It has more depth from front to back than the other two. 

6 - I then took mem2 (all chn adj) and copied to banks 4,5,6. I then ran manual eq pro so that I could select time delay. I chose the following; 4 = 10-30ms, 5 = 30-50ms (Pio recommended), and 6 = 50-70ms). This is where I could tell a difference. I found that both 30-50 and 50-70 were EQ'd brighter. I went off my ears and did not look into the menus. I also found that the midbass was lost those ranges. When I switch to 10-30 I found it to be perfect. :yikes: There was still sonic separation that MCACC brings out well and my towers held on to their midbass. I could feel the punch. I noticed the best music for testing was no other than dance/dubstep. The music hit all ranges and shifted quickly in beats and frequencies. The CD I used was Gramatik - Age of Reason and the most played song was track 6 - you don't understand. This track really helped me find differences between modes. I believe this is the setting I am going to keep. I plan to go between this setting and pure direct to determine how to best describe what MCACC does. I plan to take mem4 and copy it to mem1,2,3. Then Mem 5 and Mem6 are going to be deleted and I will manually enter in speaker levels and distances into 5 and 6 and use them as my personal tweaking stations. I did find that MCACC turns the bass down just a hair less than what I like. I will probably raise the level adjust on the sub by 1 or 1.5. All of that and I haven't taken a single measurement with REW....FAIL. :nono::foottap: So I am going to take two measurements now and post here a little later. One in pure mode with all processing off and one with the adjustments I decided on above. I want to see the differences with what MCACC is apply in a graph/chart. Thus far the 4 hours spent have been well worth it.


----------



## Arvtechman (Jul 9, 2013)

I'm still trying to get REW working right so apologies for the lack of charts. They are coming... What I have discovered with MCACC and music, turn it off! For my speakers in my room no processing sounds great...to me. I don't mind the standing wave or full band phase being on, but EQ is too bright and thin. The towers lose fullness when I turn on MCACC EQ. I like pure direct a lot, but this is stereo with no sub. So I found I most enjoy direct (stereo) because this mode sends signals to the subs. Pure was close and for most music it will suit me, but with rap/hip hop I like the sub working. Therefore since it did not color rock in a bad way I will stick with direct stereo and turn the EQ off. My plan is using mem6 and clearing the EQ to have this for my music mem bank setting. Keep in mind that this is the EQ that MCACC auto applied. I don't know if I will make personal adjustments or not. That might depend on my REW measurements. For now, with music, EQ is staying off. During the testing with the sc-75 I'm using the Pioneer iPad amp. This is a really quick way for turning features off and on and choosing sound types.

***Edited to add this***. Studio songs sometimes benefit from the EQ that MCACC applies, but you can really tell how it alters the sound with live material. It cuts bass and EQs high. The brightness jacks with the snare a lot in a live sound. After sleeping last night and getting up to recheck my thoughts I have pretty much confirmed what I found yesterday. Audio gets no treatment from MCACC. My audio memory is now configured with distance via MCACC and that is it. I checked levels with my SPL and I turn off EQ. Standing wave is not being applied. The only other alteration to my music memory is probably group delay (full band phase control) and reverb. Which is fine. It does a good job with full band phase control.

Time to test movies. I believe EQ will benefit the center channel for movies but I need to play around with the fronts... We'll see. I'm starting that testing now.


----------



## Arvtechman (Jul 9, 2013)

Movie test complete. I tried all features on. Then I tried all features on with EQ turned off for the fronts only. Then I tried all features on with EQ only on for the center. Dialog sounds much better with EQ on so that was my reason. I found that EQ on everything was great for movies. So I believe this will work for me and I have tested just about all I can with MCACC. In closing, Music gets only speaker distance with MCACC, all features off, except full band phase, and distance calibrated with SPL. Movies get all features on with distance also calibrated with SPL. 

I will be taking measurements this afternoon.


----------



## dwaleke (Dec 30, 2013)

I landed in a similar position as you.

You should also test the Upsampling option. There is a noticeable difference between x1, and x4 upsampling.

I noticed that MCACC does not level set the channels very well with the included MCACC microphone. When level setting with my calibrated UMM-6 I get much better results. Both with basic manual channel level and also in the EQ settings.


----------



## Arvtechman (Jul 9, 2013)

Indeed. I like the upsampling as well.


----------



## GCG (Aug 22, 2013)

When you say upsampling, what is the Pioneer feature term used? I'm not making the connection.


----------



## dwaleke (Dec 30, 2013)

Page 74 of the SC-75 pdf manual. 

UpSampling x1, x2, x4.


----------



## GCG (Aug 22, 2013)

Ah, Not available in the SC-71.

Thanks


----------



## Arvtechman (Jul 9, 2013)

I use my iPad and the App is iControlAV 2013 (Pioneers App). It connects to the Pioneer receiver and allows you to adjust inputs and all kind of settings. I use this app to toggle features when I am testing. I used it a lot this morning. This is how I quickly determined what sounded best when listening to music.

Pictures of the app for adjusting settings:


----------



## GCG (Aug 22, 2013)

I downloaded it for my phone (Android). Haven't tried it yet.


----------



## GCG (Aug 22, 2013)

@Austin, In reference to the brightness issue, have you played with the X-Curve? I know your room size may not call for it but it helped me out. Both my wife and I find a system tiring to listen to if it's too bright. But then my room is ~4300 ft³. Still it's worth a try.


----------



## Arvtechman (Jul 9, 2013)

I have not. I will try this out.


----------



## Arvtechman (Jul 9, 2013)

Finally measurements. Since I setup two modes on my receiver I was able to tell what MCACC was able to achieve via EQ and Standing Wave. Both modes has reverb and full band phase turned on. Both modes also had speakers set to small with 80hz x-over, distance via MCACC applied, and speaker levels set via my RS SPL. 

I noticed something with my sub volume level that I never really took into account. When doing level checks with REW it does it with the sub and fronts... I noticed this a couple db higher than with just the fronts. I turned down the sub about 6 notches in MCACC so that the sub and fronts blended with matching SPL to the fronts SPL via REW. This means when checking levels on my receiver the sub is actually a few DB lower than the rest... I learn something new every day.... Anyway here are the graphs. I think it is interesting to see what MCACC achieves in the 75db volume measurement. However, what is interesting is what happens to the waterfall when I turn my system up to the listening level I normally blare music at. It's a 20db volume increase and what happens to the room is interesting... take a look.








The above is 75db with MCACC








The above is 75db with MCACC Waterfall








75db without MCACC








75db without MCACC waterfall








96db with MCACC








96db with MCACC waterfall








96db without MCACC








96db without MCACC waterfall








All compare.

I left the waterfalls with full scale because in the first waterfall with mcacc at 75d the 800hz-1k ringing is worth noting...I think.

I've noticed I listen to music louder than movies. I watch movies probably around -11 on my receiver. I will take some measures at that level later and determine the spl there as well to measure those effects. I understand the graphs a little bit but to be honest I don't know where to go from here as far as equalizing or room treating...what do I do now? I'm sure that is a common question around here after graphs are posted. :blink:

@GCG I haven't touched the z-over yet. I want to play with that last. I'm not sure after seeing the room response and listening to music which mode I truly enjoy. Yesterday I said turn MCACC off when playing music. It is bright and will get fatiguing quicker...but accuracy though...


----------



## GCG (Aug 22, 2013)

when you said z-over did you mean x-over or x-curve?

Pardon me while I do my best impression of your mother;

Ahem ... Are you trying to go deaf?

How was that? ... really, please don't tell me you listen at 96Db for long periods on a regular basis. Loud now means lousy later. Does tinnitus RING a bell?


----------



## Arvtechman (Jul 9, 2013)

I'm doomed I know. The side effects from when I use to play in a rock band probably. 96db is the pink noise sound too.... I'm going to run a check when I have a song playing just to see. I would say 45 minute intervals. I get my fix of tunes and then put on a movie or back of the volume and relax. 

I did mean x-curve. You mentioned in a previous post to trim the brightness. Now knowing how loud I listen you can see why I "hear" it so bright....haha.


----------



## Arvtechman (Jul 9, 2013)

So another night of measurements and another amazing three hours well spent. I believe I am just about there as far as getting these speakers and environment in great condition. Tonight I made some big improvements and discovered something that had me puzzled. I'm going to post graphs that show how I walked through the process making adjustments to see the results of the work. I post all this in helps that this helps people build an idea of where they should start and some steps they should take and what results can be achieved. That, or maybe I just enjoy posting too much. Either way, enjoy!

Measurement 1 - Below was my starting point for the night. I did not take any waterfalls as tonight I just wanted to focus on Frequencies. I can take generate waterfalls later and determine who to handle that situation then.







We can notice a few things fundamentally wrong with this graph. The peaks and dips in the bass range and the huge drop at 200hz. My first thought was move the speakers and get the physical realm out of the equation. After a couple different positions and measurements I found the spot. I moved the speakers an additional 6inches out from the back wall, same toe in, and same distance from the side walls. Notice the 200hz dip disappears.

Measurement2:







This was great to see. Still some issues in the bass region. I decide to adjust the 600hz spike real quick with an EQ adjust to both the front left and front right.

Measurement3:







Next I felt the 4khz was a little high and wanted to take the edge off. So I made some adjustments in the MCACC EQ again for both front let and front right.

Measurement4:







Now I wanted to tackle the bass region. I first wanted to determine what my speakers were doing without the sub. I set the speakers to large and measured again.

Measurement5:







I found this fixed a lot of the issues with the bass. This got me thinking two things. Something is going on with the x-over in the Pio or something with the subs. I then set the speakers back to small but set the x-over from 80hz to 50hz.

Measurement6:







I noticed this looked better, but I felt 50hz was too low for my crossover. There has to be another way. I adjusted the 4k back from my previous change and thought on the bass issue.

Measurement7:







I then tried adjusting the x-over to 100hz and seeing what change that would bring.

Measurement8:







Still unevenness in the bass region. I decide to isolate subs and go from there. I turned off my sub on the back wall and left sub1 in the front wall on.

Measurement9:







:clap: Now I'm getting somewhere, but what does this mean...onder:. Then it hit me...:rofl: What would cause a dip or cut in frequencies with two subs playing...phase issues resulting in cancelation of frequencies. I immediately turned sub2 back on and switched the phase.

Measurement10:







Viola! Something that looks much, much better :clap:

Now I'm left with the dip around 150hz to try and tackle and there is still a slight raise around 600hz. I need to smooth these two areas and then begin investigating waterfalls. Overall though tonights process was great. I'm really pleased with what I am seeing and it's sounding much better in the low end. Cannot believe I didn't immediately think phase cancelation...:rubeyes: Oh well. This is what is so great about REW. Things sounded good before, but then I was able to really tweak and notice it could and has gotten better. What a great science.


----------



## GCG (Aug 22, 2013)

Nice results so far. You just need some PEQ at 150 and 600. Too bad you'd need to add separate amps to get it. Actually that rise at 600 probably isn't very audible if at all. The dip at 150 is another story.

It seems that with the development of lower costing DSP perhaps AV mfg's should start considering a few bands of user definable PEQ for AVRs for future offerings. If not that then amp inputs to go with the pre-outs so users could place DSP in the signal path themselves.


----------



## dwaleke (Dec 30, 2013)

This could work:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1510719/minidsp-nanoavr-hdmi-audio-processor-at-ces-2014


Are you going to do anything to tame your low frequency peaks (40hz, etc)?


----------



## GCG (Aug 22, 2013)

It would for me, since I basically have only two sources (my Media Server, and the cable box) but others may feel a little cramped. $300 - not bad.

The MiniDSP How-to site link: http://www.minidsp.com/applications/home-theater-tuning/equalization-with-nanoavr


----------



## GCG (Aug 22, 2013)

@Austin, did you see anything in the impulse plot (%FS) that might have correlated to your choice of 10-30ms sample delay?


----------



## Arvtechman (Jul 9, 2013)

@GCG- I did not. I went with 10-30 delay based off just listening when comparing other times.


----------



## GCG (Aug 22, 2013)

If you don't mind, could you shoot me your mdat file? I'd like to check that out. There could be an indicator that would be helpful.


----------



## Arvtechman (Jul 9, 2013)

Do you have a gmail addy you can message me so I can send over the file? It's larger than the 9mb zip limitation for upload to the forums. If not I will shrink and reattach. Email would be quicker.

I made some changes to my system yesterday. Originally I had my fronts bi-amp'd via the Pio using the front height channels. I decided that since I had speakers from my previous system laying around that I wanted to test and put them to use. So I installed front height speakers and removed the bi-amp to my fronts. I haven't listed to music yet to see if there is a noticeable difference in not bi-amping, but I watched Master and Commander last night and I was blown away by the front height addition. It raised the front sound stage and really filled the room. The ambience was noticeable to me and enough that after watching one movie I knew it was a good addition. I'm glad curiosity struck and I had the time yesterday. This falls under one of those changes that now has me looking at my movie collection to pick out which films or series I want to re-watch. I know some people say anything above 5.1 is no big deal... I have to disagree here. I'm a fan of 7.1 and even so we are starting to see more discrete 7.1 mixes. I doubt we will be seeing any 9.1 dedicated mixes anytime soon, but if your receiver is capable I definitely recommend it. I was skeptical from reading what I found online, but definitely not now. It's 9.1 setups going forward for me.

I plan to retest my setup with REW to make sure that nothing detrimental has changed my fronts. Then later I hope to tackle measuring the center and surrounds.


----------

