Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
Ratings
776
#82
I guess I must have a very good room because I just don't get the issues you guys are getting with levels and distance; and I don't even have the same speakers for the surrounds though they are all made by Energy. Whether it was Denon or Marantz, AV or AVR, XT or XT32, levels and distance have been always spot on within an inch or two. Okay the sub distance does vary a little more but that's quite normal. Very interesting indeed, no wonder I don't find it hard to resist the MRX or external REQ systems, yet...:D
Yeah I could easily see how room characteristics (good or bad) might be that much more pronounced with XT32.. my room is admittedly, terrible for audio. I talk up MCACC a lot but the reality is even when I was first setting up my old system I faced similar challenges. Even did the "sub crawl" until I found a spot that was a decent compromise between good low end response and location. It could just be that Audyssey is in fact that much better of a calibrator - able to measure and affect that much more with regards to parameters that bring out issues that may have simply been masked with my old setup. Which I don't care, as long as it sounds good. After all that's the point right? :)
 
Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
Ratings
776
#83
You guys saw the photo of my room. Do any of you think I may gain any kind of significant improvement with some modest room treatments? I say modest bc I don't care to turn my living room into something that resembles a studio more than a living room. I already have one of those, on the other side of the wall the couch is on, complete with diffuser panels, traps, etc. it's where I mix my band's music and my film project audio. :)

I don't have a lot of real estate in the corner closest to the sub due to the big window there, but perhaps a good bass trap to help cut down some of the boominess? I'd considered doing this stuff before but I got the old setup sounding good enough that I didn't bother with it.
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Samurai
Ratings
955 5
#84
Having read through this thread I thought I'd add my $.02.

I must have had a great room in the old house because XT in my Onkyo did a fantastic job. I had to play with the mic positioning and crossover, but after a few calibrations it was pretty much perfect. I used the Music mode to stop the high end roll off, turned off dynamic volume and enjoyed my system. I don't even have good speakers (well good, but not that good).

One thing I did was follow an Audyssey guide on AVS and got great results.

I have (had) two rows of seats and I put the mic on the seat of each couch and the back (headrest) of each and it worked very well. Some instances the mic would be very close to the surround speakers, some it would be very far. I don't know if that helped even things out, but I never had to change any levels or distance, just crossover.

Maybe try that method and see if it helps. I'll try to find that thread if I get time.
 
Halon451

Halon451

Audioholic Samurai
Ratings
776
#85
Having read through this thread I thought I'd add my $.02.

I must have had a great room in the old house because XT in my Onkyo did a fantastic job. I had to play with the mic positioning and crossover, but after a few calibrations it was pretty much perfect. I used the Music mode to stop the high end roll off, turned off dynamic volume and enjoyed my system. I don't even have good speakers (well good, but not that good).

One thing I did was follow an Audyssey guide on AVS and got great results.

I have (had) two rows of seats and I put the mic on the seat of each couch and the back (headrest) of each and it worked very well. Some instances the mic would be very close to the surround speakers, some it would be very far. I don't know if that helped even things out, but I never had to change any levels or distance, just crossover.

Maybe try that method and see if it helps. I'll try to find that thread if I get time.
Thanks for the input - I think it really does matter what room it's in as far as what mic placements are best for Audyssey and all anyone can do is keep trying different patterns until it works for them. I initially started out with a wide placement pattern, then began pulling it in from there and the latest results which are pretty darn good came from a very tight gathering of positions right around the MLP, some positions even repeated without moving the mic at all. Unlike you I don't have multiple rows or even multiple viewing positions; I have one large couch that both my gf and I sit on to watch movies so not a lot of area to cover really. There's one recliner off to the side that's actually outside the speaker layout but that pretty much belongs to the dog. :D

Seems the general consensus I'm gathering is that Audyssey works and works well but it's finicky and not quite a "run it and done" type of thing. Takes some experimentation to get the best results from it.

I'm happy so far with my loudspeakers they're sounding very good, balanced and powerful. Sub is ok.. needs some improvement there still to tame some residual boominess and lack of clarity but it's getting there. Pretty much decided that my next step is getting a UMIK-1 and doing the whole REW thing to see how I might knock that big sucker into better shape.
 
R

RXP

Enthusiast
Ratings
2
#86
Have you tried the App? You can specify to only EQ <200hz which could help with some of your symptoms. If you don't like the correction in the mids/highs.

I've recently got a 6011 and am super impressed with the SubEQ. It really flattened my Sub response. Like the OP I also had concerns over the LFE level it was setting. With an iPhone SPL meter I was using a (relative) measurement to trim the sound to the other channels and thought I had it dialed in. Audssey kept setting the sub level very low and even in the app asked me to reduce my main volume to a target level.

The Sub now seems to integrate much better with the other speakers. But previously I'd been running it 10-12dB hotter. So I got used to ALOT of bass. I'd go to the IMAX and wonder where the trouser shaking and chest thumping bass was - probably turned out I was always running my LFE too hot. When I run the Dolby Atmos trailer (https://thedigitaltheater.com/index.php/dolby-trailers/) the Amaze one still gives me a nice thump on an SVS Ultra 13 but nothing like it used to be.

Personal preference though but I can see myself turning it up for popcorn action flicks.

The other thing that helped me was turning on LFE+Main and a front cross over to 40hz so I got "double bass" as other manufacturer term it.
 
mpitogo2000

mpitogo2000

Audioholic Intern
Ratings
4
#87
I have an older Marantz SR7009 and the Audyssey multieq XT32 works great I only have dynamic eq on and the rest off on a 7.2.2 Atmos setup. With good mastering the sub LFE really does come alive in the Reference setting. My older Denon AVR-4802R only had distance and channel volume settings with test tones which was barely adequate.

One thing about my subs (Polk Audio DSW microPRO 3000) I didn't know was that it's got a bit more delay than the speakers do to their own Polk Room Optimization. I first calibrate each sub then calibrate with Audyssey. Audyssey places the subs about 34' from my MLP while the front speaksers are correctly placed ~13.5' Polk Audio LSi25. The front L/R also have a powered bass section and I use the L/R pre-out for the lower woofers and the L/R speaker channels for the top mid/tweeter. The calibration equalizes their response so it's flat.

I think sound tailoring should be something you can look at, they have an app to adjust the Audyssey EQ. My unit isn't capable but I think the 6011 is.
 
P

paulzhere

Audioholic Intern
Ratings
1
#88
Hi Halon451

Just to contribute my 2 cents. I have been struggling with the same problem ever since I got myself the Marantz NR1602 (resale). My room is a hard reflective box and since I live in a rented apartment, that too temporary, there is no way I can add any acoustic treatment without annoying my landlords and incurring heavy compensations. My previous AVR did not have any room correction and so I thought upgrading to the 1602 would work wonders for my room (if it is a upgrade that is). How wrong I was! Audyssey seemed to set everything bleedingly bright and too harsh to my ears. If harshness is a problem of reflective rooms, I thought that was the first thing it was supposed to correct!

I read many many articles in almost every forum and discovered I was not the only one. I ran and re-ran Audyssey. I followed the Audyssey setup tutorial to every detail but to no avail. I would have turned off Audyssey altogether but that would defeat the purpose. Also I do like the open soundstage that Audyssey seems to create. It is just the harshness that annoys me.

Then I read in one of the forums that someone had achieved good results by placing the mic at the height of the tweeters and also keeping the mic at an angle of 45 degrees towards the speakers and the positions in a very close tight radius. I tried that and it seemed to help some but not totally. I then decided to take his idea to the extreme. So these are the steps that I followed: (i) angled the mic right towards the speaker, i.e., 90 degrees (on a tripod) (ii) adjusted the mic height to exactly match the height of the tweeters (iii) removed the speaker grills (iv) tamed the immediate reflections from the floor by placing blankets and comforters (v) running Audyssey with the successive positions not more than 1' from each other.

After Audyssey did its job, I did the usual (a) changed the speakers to `small' and (b) raised the crossover to 80Hz.

After all that, I find that there is a huge improvement in the sound. A lot of the harshness and sibilance of the top end is gone and the characteristic warm Marantz sound that I like seems to be back.

I know all the guys out there will call whatever I did a big sin and blasphemy. Probably all the above steps are strictly forbidden in the standard Audyssey setup. But as long as the end result pleases my ears I don't care, because after all the aim is to enjoy the music.

One thing that crossed my mind was that my Audyssey mic might be faulty. Heard that it degrades over time and moreover I got my receiver on a resale off the bay. I plan to borrow a friend's mic next week and re-run the test in the `standard' manner. Hope that gives me better results. Till then, I am happy with what I have managed to achieve so far after so many trial n errors.
 
P

paulzhere

Audioholic Intern
Ratings
1
#89
Hi Halon451

Just to contribute my 2 cents. I have been struggling with the same problem ever since I got myself the Marantz NR1602 (resale). My room is a hard reflective box and since I live in a rented apartment, that too temporary, there is no way I can add any acoustic treatment without annoying my landlords and incurring heavy compensations. My previous AVR did not have any room correction and so I thought upgrading to the 1602 would work wonders for my room (if it is a upgrade that is). How wrong I was! Audyssey seemed to set everything bleedingly bright and too harsh to my ears. If harshness is a problem of reflective rooms, I thought that was the first thing it was supposed to correct!

I read many many articles in almost every forum and discovered I was not the only one. I ran and re-ran Audyssey. I followed the Audyssey setup tutorial to every detail but to no avail. I would have turned off Audyssey altogether but that would defeat the purpose. Also I do like the open soundstage that Audyssey seems to create. It is just the harshness that annoys me.

Then I read in one of the forums that someone had achieved good results by placing the mic at the height of the tweeters and also keeping the mic at an angle of 45 degrees towards the speakers and the positions in a very close tight radius. I tried that and it seemed to help some but not totally. I then decided to take his idea to the extreme. So these are the steps that I followed: (i) angled the mic right towards the speaker, i.e., 90 degrees (on a tripod) (ii) adjusted the mic height to exactly match the height of the tweeters (iii) removed the speaker grills (iv) tamed the immediate reflections from the floor by placing blankets and comforters (v) running Audyssey with the successive positions not more than 1' from each other.

After Audyssey did its job, I did the usual (a) changed the speakers to `small' and (b) raised the crossover to 80Hz.

After all that, I find that there is a huge improvement in the sound. A lot of the harshness and sibilance of the top end is gone and the characteristic warm Marantz sound that I like seems to be back.

I know all the guys out there will call whatever I did a big sin and blasphemy. Probably all the above steps are strictly forbidden in the standard Audyssey setup. But as long as the end result pleases my ears I don't care, because after all the aim is to enjoy the music.

One thing that crossed my mind was that my Audyssey mic might be faulty. Heard that it degrades over time and moreover I got my receiver on a resale off the bay. I plan to borrow a friend's mic next week and re-run the test in the `standard' manner. Hope that gives me better results. Till then, I am happy with what I have managed to achieve so far after so many trial n errors.
Update 14/01:
It was the mic after all! As planned, I borrowed my friend's Audyssey mic which came with his Onkyo receiver. It was an ACM1HB whereas the one that came with my Marantz NR1602 was an ACM1H. However, as Chris has said in one of his responses on the Audyssey forums, the two mics are interchangeable and have the same frequency response. So I went ahead and did the calibration with my friend's ACM1HB according to the exact official Audyssey instructions. Things seem to be much much better now. The harshness and the sibilance is gone and the music finally sounds warm and pleasing to my ears. I now see why people praise Audyssey so much.

Looking back, I think either my ACM1H was a fake (I read that there were a lot of fakes of this mic floating around at some point) or it had degraded over the years from storage. Apparently, when these mics degrade, they seem to be unable to pick up the higher frequencies well and as a result Audyssey overcompensates for the top-end. Since I'd picked up my NR1602 off the bay used, there's no guarantee of its authenticity nor its state. In any case, all's well that ends well.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Overlord
Ratings
4,062 6 1
#90
Update 14/01:
It was the mic after all! As planned, I borrowed my friend's Audyssey mic which came with his Onkyo receiver. It was an ACM1HB whereas the one that came with my Marantz NR1602 was an ACM1H. However, as Chris has said in one of his responses on the Audyssey forums, the two mics are interchangeable and have the same frequency response. So I went ahead and did the calibration with my friend's ACM1HB according to the exact official Audyssey instructions. Things seem to be much much better now. The harshness and the sibilance is gone and the music finally sounds warm and pleasing to my ears. I now see why people praise Audyssey so much.

Looking back, I think either my ACM1H was a fake (I read that there were a lot of fakes of this mic floating around at some point) or it had degraded over the years from storage. Apparently, when these mics degrade, they seem to be unable to pick up the higher frequencies well and as a result Audyssey overcompensates for the top-end. Since I'd picked up my NR1602 off the bay used, there's no guarantee of its authenticity nor its state. In any case, all's well that ends well.
I was very curious about your last post, so thank you for the update. I have been through with two Audyssey XT and one Audyssey XT32 and found the best results were obtained by following Chris's (Audyssey website) instructions to the letter. He also recommended not to use Audyssey flat unless in a small and not very reflective room.

By the way, I take exception to the Marantz warm sound beliefs, sorry, no such thing and I am quite sure it can be proved easily in simple level matched blind tests using pure direct mode. Sound signatures such as warm and bright (however loosely defined) have existed years ago, but audio amplifiers of the popular classes especially AB, are a highly mature product now. Once you get pass the entry levels, they are basically transparent, with virtually flat freq response. I have used multiple Marantz and Denon products and a few other brands so I am speaking not only in theory but by experience as well. If anyone insist on believing in sound signatures of well designed amps that have been verified time after time to be transparent to human hearing, I respect their opinions but just want to point out it is not to be taken as facts, that's all.
 
P

paulzhere

Audioholic Intern
Ratings
1
#91
I was very curious about your last post, so thank you for the update. I have been through with two Audyssey XT and one Audyssey XT32 and found the best results were obtained by following Chris's (Audyssey website) instructions to the letter. He also recommended not to use Audyssey flat unless in a small and not very reflective room.

By the way, I take exception to the Marantz warm sound beliefs, sorry, no such thing and I am quite sure it can be proved easily in simple level matched blind tests using pure direct mode. Sound signatures such as warm and bright (however loosely defined) have existed years ago, but audio amplifiers of the popular classes especially AB, are a highly mature product now. Once you get pass the entry levels, they are basically transparent, with virtually flat freq response. I have used multiple Marantz and Denon products and a few other brands so I am speaking not only in theory but by experience as well. If anyone insist on believing in sound signatures of well designed amps that have been verified time after time to be transparent to human hearing, I respect their opinions but just want to point out it is not to be taken as facts, that's all.
Hi Peng

Thanks for the response. Yes, I too remember having seen Chris' recommendation to refrain from using Audyssey Flat in reflective rooms. Since my room is a large reflective box, I don't go anywhere near Audyssey Flat. The Audyssey Reference curve sounds the best to my ears for both music and movies.

I think you're right about the warm vs. bright myth. Most of the mid to high-end modern receivers should sound similar once calibrated under similar settings given that there isn't much difference between them in terms of the hardware/technology etc. Any claimed perception of warm/bright/neutral sound etc. might be psychological and might come from our pre-conceived notions about the manufacturer's legacy sound signature. That being said, I read somewhere that different manufacturer's set the Audyssey Reference curve differently. Although, the Audyssey Flat curve is ubiquitous, the manufacturer's may tinker a little with the Reference curve to their liking. Marantz tends to `warm it up' slightly as compared with for eg. Yamaha or Onkyo. Is that true or just hearsay?

Paul.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Overlord
Ratings
4,062 6 1
#92
Hi Peng

Thanks for the response. Yes, I too remember having seen Chris' recommendation to refrain from using Audyssey Flat in reflective rooms. Since my room is a large reflective box, I don't go anywhere near Audyssey Flat. The Audyssey Reference curve sounds the best to my ears for both music and movies.

I think you're right about the warm vs. bright myth. Most of the mid to high-end modern receivers should sound similar once calibrated under similar settings given that there isn't much difference between them in terms of the hardware/technology etc. Any claimed perception of warm/bright/neutral sound etc. might be psychological and might come from our pre-conceived notions about the manufacturer's legacy sound signature. That being said, I read somewhere that different manufacturer's set the Audyssey Reference curve differently. Although, the Audyssey Flat curve is ubiquitous, the manufacturer's may tinker a little with the Reference curve to their liking. Marantz tends to `warm it up' slightly as compared with for eg. Yamaha or Onkyo. Is that true or just hearsay?

Paul.
FYI, in recent years I have use REW/Umik-1 Mic extensively to measure the frequency and phase vs time as well as THD of my HT system, so if Denon/Marantz did tinker the curve, it would have shown up in the plotted curves.

If you are sure your room can benefit from Audyssey, I would strongly recommend you upgrade to XT32. The lowest cost options are probably the Denon AVR-X3300W or AVR-X3400H if you wait till year end. For equivalent Marantz such as the SR6010, it is much harder to find good discounted prices. When I upgraded from the AV7005 to AV8801, I noticed significant improvements in terms of Audyssey's performance.
 
Y

yepimonfire

Audioholic Samurai
Ratings
377 13 5
#93
I was very curious about your last post, so thank you for the update. I have been through with two Audyssey XT and one Audyssey XT32 and found the best results were obtained by following Chris's (Audyssey website) instructions to the letter. He also recommended not to use Audyssey flat unless in a small and not very reflective room.

By the way, I take exception to the Marantz warm sound beliefs, sorry, no such thing and I am quite sure it can be proved easily in simple level matched blind tests using pure direct mode. Sound signatures such as warm and bright (however loosely defined) have existed years ago, but audio amplifiers of the popular classes especially AB, are a highly mature product now. Once you get pass the entry levels, they are basically transparent, with virtually flat freq response. I have used multiple Marantz and Denon products and a few other brands so I am speaking not only in theory but by experience as well. If anyone insist on believing in sound signatures of well designed amps that have been verified time after time to be transparent to human hearing, I respect their opinions but just want to point out it is not to be taken as facts, that's all.
I think the reference setting might not work with certain types of speakers either, notably speakers with wide, uniform dispersion. The whole idea behind the target curve on the reference setting is the assumption that your speaker's off axis response follows a downard sloping curve beginning at about 4khz-8khz. Since a majority of the reflected sound is significantly off axis, most of the spectral content of those reflections will be limited to below 4-8khz.

Our brains are excellent at sorting out the difference of the direct sound in reflective rooms from those reflections, but a microphone simply measures a combined response of both the reflections and the direct sound from the speakers. Eqing it flat would actually just be adding a massive treble boost to the direct sound from the speaker, which would sound awful.

Speakers with waveguides and well controlled HF directivity are likely to have a much more equal amount of energy across the high end off axis, so the spectral content of the reflected sound should be nearly identical in response to the direct sound, only lower in level.

I don't know what would qualify as a small room, but in a 2000 cu ft room seated 11' from the speakers, with Klipsch RP series, which have a 90x90 dispersion pattern from 1khz-14khz, the reference curve does nothing but make the speakers sound like somebody put a blanket over them. This was initially in an untreated, highly reflective room with hardwood floors too.

You could make an argument that films are mixed to the xcurve, and therefore a HF rolloff is appropriate for proper playback the way it was heard in the studio, but almost all movies are remixed for bluray in a small room with either no xcurve or a modified xcurve.

Equal EQ target curves and equal spl calibration levels do not translate the same in a small room as they do in a large theater. Modifications must be made in order to maintain the same spectral balance and dynamic range that is heard in a large theatrical dub stage when playing back in a small room. This is one reason why studios remix blurays in a 3000-5000 cu ft room. If the theatrical mix was simply plopped unaltered onto a bluray, you wouldn't be able to understand the dialogue without constantly riding the volume knob or blowing yourself out of the room.

For rooms less than 10k cubic feet, dolby recommends a modified xcurve, which rolls off 1.5dB/octave beginning at 2khz. If you have a denon avr, their cinema filter does exactly this, so the use of audyssey flat along with the cinema filter is much more appropriate for movies than audyssey's curve, which starts at 4khz and rolls off a bit faster.

The other issue i have with both audyssey and thx, is they both calibrate to 85dB with -20dBfs tones. If you read through dolby's recommendations for spl calibration in small rooms and home theaters, they specify a calibrated level of 79-82dB, nearly all bluray home mixes are remixed at this lower level too, because 85dB sounds much different in a small room vs a large theater. I suspect this is one of the reasons many people find 0dB too loud at home, because you're actually playing the movie about 6dB above what it was actually mixed at.

If you want a "reference" presentation that matches the mix heard in the studio at home, id suggest lowering audyssey's trim levels 3-6dB and utilizing cinema filter with the flat setting.
 
P

paulzhere

Audioholic Intern
Ratings
1
#94
FYI, in recent years I have use REW/Umik-1 Mic extensively to measure the frequency and phase vs time as well as THD of my HT system, so if Denon/Marantz did tinker the curve, it would have shown up in the plotted curves.

If you are sure your room can benefit from Audyssey, I would strongly recommend you upgrade to XT32. The lowest cost options are probably the Denon AVR-X3300W or AVR-X3400H if you wait till year end. For equivalent Marantz such as the SR6010, it is much harder to find good discounted prices. When I upgraded from the AV7005 to AV8801, I noticed significant improvements in terms of Audyssey's performance.
Thanks for the tip Peng. I believe that my room definitely benefits from EQ calibration. Unfortunately, I won't be able to afford any of the AVRs with XT32 at the moment. However, that will be on my wish-list; maybe a present to myself for the next Christmas ;)

By the way, how do the other calibration softwares compare with Audyssey XT32? For eg. YPAO, MCACC pro, AccuEq etc? Any views on that? (I heard that Anthem's ARC is probably the best out there. But that is way beyond what I can afford)
 
P

paulzhere

Audioholic Intern
Ratings
1
#95
I think the reference setting might not work with certain types of speakers either, notably speakers with wide, uniform dispersion. The whole idea behind the target curve on the reference setting is the assumption that your speaker's off axis response follows a downard sloping curve beginning at about 4khz-8khz. Since a majority of the reflected sound is significantly off axis, most of the spectral content of those reflections will be limited to below 4-8khz.

Our brains are excellent at sorting out the difference of the direct sound in reflective rooms from those reflections, but a microphone simply measures a combined response of both the reflections and the direct sound from the speakers. Eqing it flat would actually just be adding a massive treble boost to the direct sound from the speaker, which would sound awful.

Speakers with waveguides and well controlled HF directivity are likely to have a much more equal amount of energy across the high end off axis, so the spectral content of the reflected sound should be nearly identical in response to the direct sound, only lower in level.

I don't know what would qualify as a small room, but in a 2000 cu ft room seated 11' from the speakers, with Klipsch RP series, which have a 90x90 dispersion pattern from 1khz-14khz, the reference curve does nothing but make the speakers sound like somebody put a blanket over them. This was initially in an untreated, highly reflective room with hardwood floors too.

You could make an argument that films are mixed to the xcurve, and therefore a HF rolloff is appropriate for proper playback the way it was heard in the studio, but almost all movies are remixed for bluray in a small room with either no xcurve or a modified xcurve.

Equal EQ target curves and equal spl calibration levels do not translate the same in a small room as they do in a large theater. Modifications must be made in order to maintain the same spectral balance and dynamic range that is heard in a large theatrical dub stage when playing back in a small room. This is one reason why studios remix blurays in a 3000-5000 cu ft room. If the theatrical mix was simply plopped unaltered onto a bluray, you wouldn't be able to understand the dialogue without constantly riding the volume knob or blowing yourself out of the room.

For rooms less than 10k cubic feet, dolby recommends a modified xcurve, which rolls off 1.5dB/octave beginning at 2khz. If you have a denon avr, their cinema filter does exactly this, so the use of audyssey flat along with the cinema filter is much more appropriate for movies than audyssey's curve, which starts at 4khz and rolls off a bit faster.

The other issue i have with both audyssey and thx, is they both calibrate to 85dB with -20dBfs tones. If you read through dolby's recommendations for spl calibration in small rooms and home theaters, they specify a calibrated level of 79-82dB, nearly all bluray home mixes are remixed at this lower level too, because 85dB sounds much different in a small room vs a large theater. I suspect this is one of the reasons many people find 0dB too loud at home, because you're actually playing the movie about 6dB above what it was actually mixed at.

If you want a "reference" presentation that matches the mix heard in the studio at home, id suggest lowering audyssey's trim levels 3-6dB and utilizing cinema filter with the flat setting.

Hi yepimonfire

Thanks for the nice info. I was wondering about your tip on lowering the audyssey trim levels after calibration. Wouldn't that mess with the audyssey settings? esp. dynEQ?
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Overlord
Ratings
4,062 6 1
#96
Thanks for the tip Peng. I believe that my room definitely benefits from EQ calibration. Unfortunately, I won't be able to afford any of the AVRs with XT32 at the moment. However, that will be on my wish-list; maybe a present to myself for the next Christmas ;)

By the way, how do the other calibration softwares compare with Audyssey XT32? For eg. YPAO, MCACC pro, AccuEq etc? Any views on that? (I heard that Anthem's ARC is probably the best out there. But that is way beyond what I can afford)
I don't think there is any consensus out there. There were people who posted some comparison results with graphs, but they were quite old and probably mostly done with the older versions. I am not sure if they followed instructions 100% or did their tests in such way that the product was allowed to perform their best either, let alone being unbiased. As such, I wouldn't say their findings mean a whole lot either. If you believe in those forum talks and/or subjective reviews though, there seem to be more satisfied owners and reviewers of Dirac live, followed by Anthem ARC, Trinnov and then Audyssey, fewer people mentioned YPAO and MCACC. Then there is RoomPerfect (Lyngdorf amps only) that seemed to have 100% positive reviews.

In my opinion, Anthem ARC, Lyngdorf's RoomPerfect have the upper hand in terms of quality control for the obvious reason. YPAO and MCACC should have the same benefits, yet we don't hear/read as much about them. On the other hand, Dirac and Audyssey could potentially performed differently dependent on the hardware. For example, XT32 may perform better on an AV8802A than a AVR-X3300W, but I could be wrong on this.
 
Y

yepimonfire

Audioholic Samurai
Ratings
377 13 5
#97
Thats the point. If a bluray was remixed for a home release at 82dB vs 85dB, then dynamic eq would be applying too much compensation, since the mix engineer mixed the LFE in a smaller room at a lower volume level. As i said before the way a mix translates in a large room vs a small room is completely different, in a small bedroom 79dB is perceptually the same as 85dB in a large cinema.

If you browse through various discussions on gearslutz and the protools boards, you'll find small rooms are never calibrated to 85dB, because it doesn't properly translate at 85dB on a theatrical dub stage.

I would only calibrate to 85dB if the mlp is a minimum of 14' from the screen speakers and the room is well treated. Between 14' and 10', I'd go for 82, less than 10', 79dB.

As to whether or not Audyssey reference is necessary in your room, switch back and forth between direct mode and stereo with audyssey ref enabled, if it sounds like the highs are rolled off with audyssey vs direct, it's likely not appropriate.



Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk
 
P

paulzhere

Audioholic Intern
Ratings
1
#98
Thats the point. If a bluray was remixed for a home release at 82dB vs 85dB, then dynamic eq would be applying too much compensation, since the mix engineer mixed the LFE in a smaller room at a lower volume level. As i said before the way a mix translates in a large room vs a small room is completely different, in a small bedroom 79dB is perceptually the same as 85dB in a large cinema.

If you browse through various discussions on gearslutz and the protools boards, you'll find small rooms are never calibrated to 85dB, because it doesn't properly translate at 85dB on a theatrical dub stage.

I would only calibrate to 85dB if the mlp is a minimum of 14' from the screen speakers and the room is well treated. Between 14' and 10', I'd go for 82, less than 10', 79dB.

As to whether or not Audyssey reference is necessary in your room, switch back and forth between direct mode and stereo with audyssey ref enabled, if it sounds like the highs are rolled off with audyssey vs direct, it's likely not appropriate.



Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk
Hi yepimonfire

Thanks for the tips. I'll try them out. Btw, what about music? Does the formula for lowering the Audyssey trim apply for music as well?

I was wondering about something else. Audyssey detects my fronts as `Large'. Going with THX recommendation I set them manually to `Small' and raise the crossover to 80Hz. Shouldn't I also raise the subwoofer trim? If so by how much? My understanding is that when the speakers are set to `Large' the entire frequency range is set to them. So in effect, the lows would be sent to both the speakers and subwoofer. After setting them to `Small' the lows are now sent only to the sub. The low which is missing from the fronts now should be somehow compensated for in the sub, isn't that right? I would imagine raising the trim by a +3db assuming the lows are now cut by half.

Thanks in advance for your response.
 

newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
  • CEDIA