|
|
Post by sacdukeman on Feb 19, 2013 11:30:59 GMT -5
Yesterday, Jeff Meier (Accucal) calibrated my 5.2 HT audio system - I don't have much time now but will expand tonight after work. Let me just say the results are stunning. The improvement over EmoQ2 and Flat are huge - such is the power of the parametric equalization in the hands of a pro. His summary is attached: the first chart is with EmoQ engaged, the second is his manual calibration. Per Jeff, for lower-end or mid-range systems, the benefits will typically be substantial. Those of you with Aerial 20Ts and great acoustics can probably do without but for the rest of us . . . . He ranks it as equalling or even surpassing the Classe 800. Using 5 channel white noise, the end product was a full and fluid waterfall/stream sound, wherea EmoQ sounded hollow (too much highs and lows) and flat was better but nowhere near as full/rich. A few quick notes. EmoQ's main defects are a too low center (which we all knew) and a too hot sub. Changing the crossover slope to 12 from 24 allowed a lower crossover for my small Atlantic mains and center. And the peak between 20 and 30 hz is by design - to give more oomph at low listening volumes (otherwise it would have been flat). One defect found in his thorough testing of the decoding - DTS-HD MA 7.1 track rear sounds are not folded into a 5.1 system (True HD and pcm 7.1 are fine). The easy workaround is to have the player decode and send as pcm on those fairly rare instances where you have a DTS-HD 7.1 track. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by villock on Feb 19, 2013 11:50:33 GMT -5
Yesterday, Jeff Meier (Accucal) calibrated my 5.2 HT audio system - I don't have much time now but will expand tonight after work. Let me just say the results are stunning. The improvement over EmoQ2 and Flat are huge - such is the power of the parametric equalization in the hands of a pro. His summary is attached: the first chart is with EmoQ engaged, the second is his manual calibration. Per Jeff, for lower-end or mid-range systems, the benefits will typically be substantial. Those of you with Aerial 20Ts and great acoustics can probably do without but for the rest of us . . . . He ranks it as equalling or even surpassing the Classe 800. Using 5 channel white noise, the end product was a full and fluid waterfall/stream sound, wherea EmoQ sounded hollow (too much highs and lows) and flat was better but nowhere near as full/rich. A few quick notes. EmoQ's main defects are a too low center (which we all knew) and a too hot sub. Changing the crossover slope to 12 from 24 allowed a lower crossover for my small Atlantic mains and center. And the peak between 20 and 30 hz is by design - to give more oomph at low listening volumes (otherwise it would have been flat). One defect found in his thorough testing of the decoding - DTS-HD MA 7.1 track rear sounds are not folded into a 5.1 system (True HD and pcm 7.1 are fine). The easy workaround is to have the player decode and send as pcm on those fairly rare instances where you have a DTS-HD 7.1 track. Jeff is awesome. I had him over my house in 2007 when I bought my Sony SXRD, before my first Emotiva piece of gear. He didn't do my audio because my system back then was aweful so he said I would be wasting his time and my money ;D. He is very honest and real easy to talk to. I'm going to have him over this fall when he tours my area again and let him work his magic. |
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs 
"We made too many of the wrong mistakes." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,903
|
Post by cawgijoe on Feb 19, 2013 13:14:08 GMT -5
Too low center and too hot sub is not just an Emotiva trend. I had to adjust my Pioneer Elite receiver to up the center channel a couple db and to lower the sub a few db to get the system to sound right.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,348
|
Post by DYohn on Feb 19, 2013 14:01:20 GMT -5
Those results are excellent. There's no substitute for properly ringing a room.  |
|
|
|
Post by sacdukeman on Feb 19, 2013 22:53:05 GMT -5
Too low center and too hot sub is not just an Emotiva trend. I had to adjust my Pioneer Elite receiver to up the center channel a couple db and to lower the sub a few db to get the system to sound right. Agreed. But, like yours, my Elite receiver (different room) was not as far off on the center level. EmoQ missed by 5 - 6 dbs. |
|
|
|
Post by sacdukeman on Feb 19, 2013 22:56:33 GMT -5
Those results are excellent. There's no substitute for properly ringing a room. Yeah. I am thrilled with it. Jeff said the equalization is great, better even than the Classe, due to the range of q available. And my 2 subwoofer setup wasn't an easy one (at least in theory) because the subs are different sizes (12" v. 10") and types (selaed v. passive radiator). That is where a pro can really help you in a way no auto setup program can. |
|
|
|
Post by bolle on Feb 20, 2013 6:48:38 GMT -5
I will calibrate on monday together with my expert of choice. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by avaddikt on Feb 20, 2013 9:25:55 GMT -5
I replied on AV forums. I know Jeff's work well, and you can't go wrong.
It does still raise the question whether any other auto-Cal would have been much better than EmoQ or any closer to a pro's results.
Naturally, some room conditions/speakers placements will be better or worse than others so any significance with regards to the method used will vary accordingly.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,348
|
Post by DYohn on Feb 20, 2013 10:41:18 GMT -5
It does still raise the question whether any other auto-Cal would have been much better than EmoQ or any closer to a pro's results. Not likely. Perhaps I'm biased since I used to make a living setting up rooms and cinemas, but there is no way any automatic EQ system can be as good as a pro with the correct tools. Auto EQ systems don't have ears. |
|
|
|
Post by sacdukeman on Feb 20, 2013 11:12:50 GMT -5
I replied on AV forums. I know Jeff's work well, and you can't go wrong. It does still raise the question whether any other auto-Cal would have been much better than EmoQ or any closer to a pro's results. Naturally, some room conditions/speakers placements will be better or worse than others so any significance with regards to the method used will vary accordingly. Yeah, Jeff is awesome. I agree that some auto-eq programs do better than others but none have a pro's equipment (inc. mic) or can tell you where to move your mains (we pulled mine out about a foot) or can decide where to put two subs and how to divide the load between them, or tell you where an acoustical panel should go (or which type you need) etc. |
|
|
|
Post by sacdukeman on Feb 20, 2013 11:14:28 GMT -5
It does still raise the question whether any other auto-Cal would have been much better than EmoQ or any closer to a pro's results. Not likely. Perhaps I'm biased since I used to make a living setting up rooms and cinemas, but there is no way any automatic EQ system can be as good as a pro with the correct tools. Auto EQ systems don't have ears. Super point - he set up all the manual eq's and levels by instrument, then tweaked several by ear based on film and music tracks. |
|
|
|
Post by avaddikt on Feb 20, 2013 12:34:48 GMT -5
Not likely. Perhaps I'm biased since I used to make a living setting up rooms and cinemas, but there is no way any automatic EQ system can be as good as a pro with the correct tools. Auto EQ systems don't have ears. Super point - he set up all the manual eq's and levels by instrument, then tweaked several by ear based on film and music tracks. He is a perfectionist, and works the same way with video. Using appropriate samples for his final tweak. There is no auto system for audio or any video disk that can equal that kind of knowledge, dedication and experience. Of course the degree of improvement is largely dependent on what is lacking at the start. |
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Feb 20, 2013 18:59:14 GMT -5
He is a perfectionist, and works the same way with video. Using appropriate samples for his final tweak. There is no auto system for audio or any video disk that can equal that kind of knowledge, dedication and experience. Of course the degree of improvement is largely dependent on what is lacking at the start. I'm seriously thinking of having Jeff tweak my system as well. I finally bought a new plasma so I'm definitely interested. I know Jeff is not a fan of any room correction systems which is cool. But I wonder if he could manually tweak my system with the 4311 which I'm sure has a poor manual EQ system compared to the UMC-200. Bill |
|
|
|
Post by avaddikt on Feb 20, 2013 19:44:27 GMT -5
He is a perfectionist, and works the same way with video. Using appropriate samples for his final tweak. There is no auto system for audio or any video disk that can equal that kind of knowledge, dedication and experience. Of course the degree of improvement is largely dependent on what is lacking at the start. I'm seriously thinking of having Jeff tweak my system as well. I finally bought a new plasma so I'm definitely interested. I know Jeff is not a fan of any room correction systems which is cool. But I wonder if he could manually tweak my system with the 4311 which I'm sure has a poor manual EQ system compared to the UMC-200. Bill It's a good question, since there is an infinite number of variables for each situation. Maybe he will decide Audyssey in your receiver can be shown to still be better than 'nothing'. And while the condition of the room is very important so is actual speaker placement within the room. And that is something he can measure and demonstrate. He did a super job on my 4 y/o plasma, making it harder for me to justify a replacement in the near future, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by sacdukeman on Feb 20, 2013 22:42:07 GMT -5
He is a perfectionist, and works the same way with video. Using appropriate samples for his final tweak. There is no auto system for audio or any video disk that can equal that kind of knowledge, dedication and experience. Of course the degree of improvement is largely dependent on what is lacking at the start. I'm seriously thinking of having Jeff tweak my system as well. I finally bought a new plasma so I'm definitely interested. I know Jeff is not a fan of any room correction systems which is cool. But I wonder if he could manually tweak my system with the 4311 which I'm sure has a poor manual EQ system compared to the UMC-200. Bill The PEQ really benefits people like me with decent, but not stellar, main/center speakers and acoustics. You have great mains/center that will play flat, so if your acoustics are pretty good, you won't need much eq. As said above, what Jeff can do easily with your Denon is fine tune the channel levels, adjust crossovers, look at speaker placement, make acoustical improvement suggestions, etc - all quite achievable with a nice denon like yours. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2013 0:12:41 GMT -5
I understand the wish to have a pro come and calibrate ones system. I for one am very skeptical of the auto systems and have posted this opinion many times here. I find it amazing that so many folks consider having Audyssey or other auto calibration a priority feature of an AVR or pre-pro. Doing a manual calibration is not that difficult and the cost of a pro doing it for me is out of the question for my budget.
I have an entry level Panny plasma and did my own settings with IMO super results and I am very picky. The audio section might be more tricky but still my results have been very satisfactory. Yeah, it takes some study and reading but is not something one has to be an audio engineer to handle. I see many folks spend hours and hours here over which DAC sounds better, but would never consider doing their speaker setup the old fashioned way.
I'm sure sacdukeman got excellent service from Jeff but for me I'll stick with the DIY method. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Feb 21, 2013 8:46:29 GMT -5
I understand the wish to have a pro come and calibrate ones system. I for one am very skeptical of the auto systems and have posted this opinion many times here. I find it amazing that so many folks consider having Audyssey or other auto calibration a priority feature of an AVR or pre-pro. Doing a manual calibration is not that difficult and the cost of a pro doing it for me is out of the question for my budget. I have an entry level Panny plasma and did my own settings with IMO super results and I am very picky. The audio section might be more tricky but still my results have been very satisfactory. Yeah, it takes some study and reading but is not something one has to be an audio engineer to handle. I see many folks spend hours and hours here over which DAC sounds better, but would never consider doing their speaker setup the old fashioned way. I'm sure sacdukeman got excellent service from Jeff but for me I'll stick with the DIY method. ;D I certainly respect your opinion as far as using pro calibrators and room correction systems. But for those like myself that have spent $5-10K on their systems spending another $350-500 is not a huge amount to get the very best out of their systems. As far as room correction systems I think there are variables as to how well each one works. I was using Audyssey XT and I felt it did not work well with music or that it did that great of a job with my sub. That all changed when I went to XT32 as I now use it for all music listening. The difference in the way my sub is EQ'd with XT32 is huge over the way XT worked. I tend to doubt many can EQ their sub(s) manually as well as XT32 can without external EQ devices (Anti-Mode, Behringer etc). I'm still amazed how my single sub sounds as if it was placed in the center of my room with minimal localization. Also the SQ as far as music especially the acoustic bass (with jazz music) is so much better than when using the Direct audio mode. I have seen a number of people say they would never use an RC system. But when asked if they have tried the better RC systems such as XT32, ARC, TacT or Trinnov many have said they have not. So I always ask how can someone be totally against RC systems when they haven't tried the better systems  ? I'm not amazed at all that many people want some form of room correction system with their AVR/prepro. At least one has the option to utilize the RC system or do it manually if one is knowledgeable enough. If it isn't included then one does not have the option to at least try it. With the inclusion of TacT in the XMC-1 it has generated quite a bit of interest. Without TacT some might not have as much interest in the XMC-1. I know I probably wouldn't. Bill |
|
umr
Minor Hero
AccuCal Home Theater Services
Posts: 25
|
Post by umr on Feb 21, 2013 9:11:28 GMT -5
He is a perfectionist, and works the same way with video. Using appropriate samples for his final tweak. There is no auto system for audio or any video disk that can equal that kind of knowledge, dedication and experience. Of course the degree of improvement is largely dependent on what is lacking at the start. I'm seriously thinking of having Jeff tweak my system as well. I finally bought a new plasma so I'm definitely interested. I know Jeff is not a fan of any room correction systems which is cool. But I wonder if he could manually tweak my system with the 4311 which I'm sure has a poor manual EQ system compared to the UMC-200. Bill Bill, I certainly can improve your system. I find Audyssey to never be very good. I always turn it off. The EQ in Denon is not as precise as that in the UMC-200. The value of that precision depends on the complexity of the errors. |
|
|
|
Post by villock on Feb 21, 2013 9:17:50 GMT -5
I'm seriously thinking of having Jeff tweak my system as well. I finally bought a new plasma so I'm definitely interested. I know Jeff is not a fan of any room correction systems which is cool. But I wonder if he could manually tweak my system with the 4311 which I'm sure has a poor manual EQ system compared to the UMC-200. Bill Bill, I certainly can improve your system. I find Audyssey to never be very good. I always turn it off. The EQ in Denon is not as precise as that in the UMC-200. The value of that precision depends on the complexity of the errors. Hey Jeff hows everything going? Welcome to the lounge ;D I hope you contribute to the forum on a regular. |
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Feb 21, 2013 9:42:34 GMT -5
Bill, I certainly can improve your system. I find Audyssey to never be very good. I always turn it off. The EQ in Denon is not as precise as that in the UMC-200. The value of that precision depends on the complexity of the errors. Hey Jeff, Welcome to the Lounge ! I have no doubt that you can improve my system. You have done work for Bruce (in NH) and he speaks very highly of your work. Bruce also commented that you are not a fan of Audyssey which is cool. I will contact you through your site to see when you will be back in the New England area. I think there is a possibility of three of us in our area that are interested. Bill |
|
?
