Tip of The Day: You're Smarter Than Your Receiver

[admin]

Just because your new-fangled receiver has an automatic calibration mic doesn't mean it's guaranteed to setup your speakers properly. Sure, the automatic calibration can be beneficial, but it will almost always get a few things wrong. We frequently read posts that say something to the effect of "My receiver set my speakers to +10dB, my sub to -10dB, and set my mains to large." Results like this are a good indicator that the auto-setup mic on your receiver has some major flaws. Sometimes the answer is just to relocate the mic and retest or change the position of some of your speakers, but typically the best route is to scrap the auto-setup mic and do things manually. For extra tips on how to properly place your speakers or setup your receiver, checkout our complete "Tips & Tricks" section.

Discuss "Tip of The Day: You're Smarter Than Your Receiver" here. Read the article.

 

[gmichael]

It is important not to set the mic directly on your seat when running the auto calibration set up. A tripod is needed. Even then, results may vary.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

It is important not to set the mic directly on your seat when running the auto calibration set up. A tripod is needed. Even then, results may vary.

The routine of running auto-calibration is very specific and unique. In addition to using a tripod (a absolute must) there are many other details

Do it wrong and your results will be all over chart. Doing EQing by ear is in my opinion a bad practice. To verify auto-calibrations results use a decent spl meter.


http://www.avsforum.com/t/795421/official-audyssey-thread-faq-in-post-1/5700#post_14456895

 

[gmichael]

The routine of running auto-calibration is very specific and unique. In addition to using a tripod (a absolute must) there are many other details
Do it wrong and your results will be all over chart. Doing EQing is in my opinion a bad practice. To verify auto-calibrations results use a decent spl meter.
"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #1)

I agree. I set all my speakers to flat after running auto-cals. It does seem to do a good job with distances and levels. I check them afterwards and so far, they have always been spot on for me.
The only EQing I do is with my sub using a BFD.

 

[Adam]

It is important not to set the mic directly on your seat when running the auto calibration set up. A tripod is needed. Even then, results may vary.

Excellent point. You can also use a makeshift tripod. I use a Swiffer Sweeper handle, which fits the bottom indentation of my Pioneer mic perfectly. The pics below are from my system thread. Because I sit on the floor in that spot to eat with Niki, the mic in those photos is in the right place for one of my three calibration spots.

I knew that I'd find a use for that Swiffer Sweeper.

Btw, the bottom indentation on the mic fit the top of the handle perfectly.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

The mic position should be at your ear level and position

 

[Adam]

The mic position should be at your ear level and position

Agreed. If that's referring to my post, you'll see that it is once you read the text.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Agreed. If that's referring to my post, you'll see that it is once you read the text.

lol, yes you are

 

[panteragstk]

I always used to use my trusty SPL meter for calibration. Once I got my receiver with MultEQ XT I was really impressed. I checked all the levels with the spl meter and everything was spot on. When I used the Pioneer auto calibration, it was WAY off. Granted, this is the lowest end Pioneer made so I wasn't really expecting it to be very good.

I'll be EQing my subs using a MiniDSP once I get my amp. Audyssey didn't fix some dips I have. Better than just the SPL meter, but not great.

 

[Adam]

When I used the Pioneer auto calibration, it was WAY off. Granted, this is the lowest end Pioneer made so I wasn't really expecting it to be very good.

Which Pioneer do/did you have? The first one that I got with MCAAC was back in 2005, and it was spot on with the levels in my system. My newer one from 2009 does the same. Just curious, thanks.

 

[panteragstk]

Which Pioneer do/did you have? The first one that I got with MCAAC was back in 2005, and it was spot on with the levels in my system. My newer one from 2009 does the same. Just curious, thanks.

The 521k. I paid a whole $140 for it. Fantastic for the money.

 

[brianedm]

After some initial hiccups, I can not say enough positive things about xt32. It lives up to the hype, IMO.

 

[panteragstk]

After some initial hiccups, I can not say enough positive things about xt32. It lives up to the hype, IMO.

Did you notice a difference with the dual sub calibration?

 

[brianedm]

Did you notice a difference with the dual sub calibration?

It does an excellent job with dual subs. It makes set up a breeze

 

[brianedm]

Did you notice a difference with the dual sub calibration?

Oh, and yes, I noticed a difference with the quality of my bass as well

 

[Cliff_is]

The mics tend to be pretty good when it comes to level and distance, except for sub(s).

The EQ function is generally pretty poor. We have actually starting taking measurements before/after on most of our new receiver reviews. the most recent Yamaha and Sony's I have measured had some issues. I have a Denon with MultiEQ XT I am going to take measurements on at some point to add that to the mix.

 

[ahblaza]

It does an excellent job with dual subs. It makes set up a breeze

That's a good point, as your receiver not only has XT32 but dual independant sub EQ, some receivers that have XT32 do not necessarily have the SUB EQ feature which almost cost me $1000 to find out, I'm glad I read the fine print.
Cheers Jeff

 

[kaiser_soze]

It varies with the brand of receiver

I have played with more than one brand of receiver that provides this sort of capability. I did not get satisfactory results with any of them, but the results were far worse with some than others. And the most popular brand of this capability is intolerable as far as I am concerned, due to the extreme emphasis on high frequencies. Nothing sound the least bit natural. And I experimented at length with mic placement, and it didn't matter. The mic itself is not an issue, in theory at least, and it should not be an issue in reality, owing to the fact that it is so easy for this systems to incorporate correction for the mic. No, the problem is elsewhere. The premise that room response should be flat is wrong. Yeah, I knows that sounds counter-intuitive, but not if you think it over. To make the room response flat, the on-axis response anywhere close to the speaker has to have exaggerated treble output, to compensate for the fact that all the reflections from the side walls and especially the rear do not have as much treble. This of course is due to the simple fact that the speaker is more directional at high frequency. If the room response is flat, the on-axis, anechoic response of the speaker will be many dB higher at high treble frequency in comparison to most of the audible spectrum. This is simply a consequence of the way that conventional speakers behave. For them to sound good, the reflections from the walls, floor and ceiling have to be attenuated in the treble. It probably does make sense to try and correct for the major peaks and dips that occur in the upper bass and in the midrange for most speakers, but the problem is that the most popular of these products goes too far and strives to achieve an overall tonal balance that just isn't the least bit natural. In plain truth, it sounds damned awful.