KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,002
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 28, 2013 11:23:26 GMT -5
Remember - auto-calibration is a convenience feature. For most companies, it is what we call a "product differentiator". It's not something you buy per-se, but rather a feature that you look for when you're deciding what to buy. Assuming you plan to use it, then you try and figure out which one will do the best job. (I didn't buy a CVT transmission for my Nissan, but being able to have one was one of the features I considered when deciding what car to buy. I don't personally listen to radio much, so the fact that they threw in XM radio didn't impress me as much.) Companies like Audyssey spend a lot of money convincing potential customers that their product will be useful to them; that way, hopefully, when they look for a new pre/pro, it will be on their "check list"; so company xyz, knowing this, will pay Audyssey to let them offer it in their product. In "the bigger picture", they don't especially care if you care or not; they already have statistics that xx% more people will buy their product if they offer Audyssey - and that's enough. You are also correct in your comment that the various auto-correction systems each have their strengths and limitations. So, one or the other WILL work better for different people, with different rooms, and different speakers. (As far as we can tell, the single biggest differentiator that Audyssey has is a very well-known name... undoubtedly due to an excellent marketing department with a good budget They have spent a lot of money to convince people that they "need" it and that it will make their system sound better.) As I mentioned in another post, you can get a pretty good calibrated microphone, with analysis software, for a few hundred dollars. All you really need is a calibrated microphone (there is plenty of low cost, and even free, software available today.) Since I happen to enjoy audio, and I do know how to do it myself, and I already do own the equipment, that's what I would do (if I was going to do a manual set up). If you don't have the time, or the inclination, to learn how to do it yourself, and you're not satisfied with the results of an automatic system, then hiring an expert is a good way to get it done. (And, if you're only going to do it once, it probably doesn't cost much more than buying the equipment and the time it takes to learn it yourself.) Now, to be totally honest, I prefer to listen to my stereo music sans processing (because, to my ear, processing of any kind, including EQ, always has a slight effect on the sound quality otherwise). Since you really do need EQ and room correction to have surround material sound good, I use EmoQ for that, and I find that it works quite well in my apartment with my system. (Could I do it better manually? Probably, if I was willing to spend several hours doing it. Will I spend the time and effort to do so? No. EmoQ does a plenty good job for me.) Honestly, though, this is a silly thing to be discussing.... Try EMoQ. If you're like the majority of people you will be pleased with the results. If not, you may still be happy with the results of EMoQ with a few minor manual adjustments. If you're still not satisfied, then is the time to decide whether to hire an expert or buy some equipment of your own and start reading ;D 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
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Feb 28, 2013 11:29:24 GMT -5
It is the realm of the unknowable that I flounder in. When umr walks on water (without trickery of course and with varified and calibrated water surface tensions falling within the norm range), I will join in with billmac's awe of him. My apologies to the Lounge, I didn't intend to get into a long drawn out harangue with another member. I'm not in awe of Jeff. I just have a healthy respect for someone like him that has the skills, experience and the tools to do a job that many can not accomplish. It is the same respect I have for you in your field even though I have zero knowledge of said field. Anyone with your credentials and years of experience will have that respect. I'm sure you would not appreciate some young buck fresh out of college with a degree in your field who then proceeds to question your skills with minimal if no time in your field of expertise. Bill
|
|
|
Post by avaddikt on Feb 28, 2013 12:01:52 GMT -5
Most are just fine using things the way they are. Others like to tweak and make things better, or more suited to their senses. I think most of us fall in the latter category.
There is no doubt in my mind, and in my experience, that there is always room for improvement. How much improvement depends on how much time, money and effort will yield the results you want.
Auto-Cal is a significant improvement for most. There is tremendous variability in speaker placement and room conditions, so having an auto-system, or alternate method of calibration (REW, etc.), can help deal with those variables to give us a more optimum sound field.
Video CAl disks can make an noticeable improvement in picture quality regardless of display type. I think that is an obvious conclusion. I highly recommend spending the $15-30 to get a cal disk and do it. The Disney WOW disk gets a lot of recommendations.
Now, will everyone benefit from an instrumented calibration performed by a someone with the experience, tools, and knowledge to do the job?
I have to say YES, based on my own experience of having it performed. How much you will gain will of course depend on how much correction you need to start with. In video alone, my experience was a significant improvement over the use a cal disk (and I did it with a disk numerous times). No doubt some will look at the difference and say, 'ehhh' not enough for me to want to pay for it. And that's fine. We all have different expectations and tolerances. We simply don't all appreciate the same things, no news there!
Just enjoy what you have and what works for you. But don't condemn something you don't have first-hand experiences with.
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Feb 28, 2013 12:07:01 GMT -5
Most are just fine using things the way they are. Others like to tweak and make things better, or more suited to their senses. I think most of us fall in the latter category. There is no doubt in my mind, and in my experience, that there is always room for improvement. How much improvement depends on how much time, money and effort will yield the results you want. Auto-Cal is a significant improvement for most. There is tremendous variability in speaker placement and room conditions, so having an auto-system, or alternate method of calibration (REW, etc.), can help deal with those variables to give us a more optimum sound field. Video CAl disks can make an noticeable improvement in picture quality regardless of display type. I think that is an obvious conclusion. I highly recommend spending the $15-30 to get a cal disk and do it. The Disney WOW disk gets a lot of recommendations. Now, will everyone benefit from an instrumented calibration performed by a someone with the experience, tools, and knowledge to do the job? I have to say YES, based on my own experience of having it performed. How much you will gain will of course depend on how much correction you need to start with. In video alone, my experience was a significant improvement over the use a cal disk (and I did it with a disk numerous times). No doubt some will look at the difference and say, 'ehhh' not enough for me to want to pay for it. And that's fine. We all have different expectations and tolerances. We simply don't all appreciate the same things, no news there! Just enjoy what you have and what works for you. But don't condemn something you don't have first-hand experiences with. avaddikt, Very well said ! I totally agree especially with the last sentence in your post. Bill
|
|
|
Post by garym on Feb 28, 2013 13:05:23 GMT -5
. . . you were in too much of a hurry questioning Jeff's capabilities . I don't think anyone was questioning Jeff's abilities. What was in question is whether those abilities are exclusive to Jeff, and what is required to acquire the ability to properly EQ an audio system. Some have posted in this thread that anyone with basic REW knowledge and a calibrated mic can match the results Jeff attained on their systems. Again I find this quite humorous when someone with basic skills actually thinks they can match the capabilities of someone as experienced as Jeff. That would be me. But I made no claim about matching Jeff's abilities. You don't need to match those abilities to calibrate your system. When the measured response is flat per REW (or tweaked to suit your ear), it is as good as it can get. No pro could make it flatter. I'm sure Jeff could do it quicker, especially if you're doing it for the first time. Just as it would take you longer to plumb in a new bathroom so that it passes inspection, than it would a journeyman plumber. But the results will be the same. The skills required to EQ an audio system are minimal, and easily acquired. As I said before, it is not rocket science.
|
|
|
Post by garym on Feb 28, 2013 13:10:21 GMT -5
I meant those who question the process of a pro-calibration, that have not seen it done first hand, are making assumptions with regards to the value and the expected results. I didn't question the process of pro calibration. I'm sure it works fine. But I don't need to see it done first-hand. I only need to see the resulting response curves. If mine are as flat as Jeff's, then the results are just as good.
|
|
|
Post by moodyman on Feb 28, 2013 15:19:46 GMT -5
I did not question umr's skill and experience at A/V calibration. I questioned his posturing that his results are unobtainable by any other human being due to his unique skills, knowledge and custom designed measurement equipment. I would not even have posted into this thread if he had not self proclaimed his super human status. Bingo
|
|
|
Post by avaddikt on Feb 28, 2013 15:23:50 GMT -5
I meant those who question the process of a pro-calibration, that have not seen it done first hand, are making assumptions with regards to the value and the expected results. I didn't question the process of pro calibration. I'm sure it works fine. But I don't need to see it done first-hand. I only need to see the resulting response curves. If mine are as flat as Jeff's, then the results are just as good. That's where we differ. I would certainly have to see a comparison of cals done on my own setup to arrive at that conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by avaddikt on Feb 28, 2013 19:15:34 GMT -5
I'm sure Jeff could do it quicker, especially if you're doing it for the first time. Just as it would take you longer to plumb in a new bathroom so that it passes inspection, than it would a journeyman plumber. But the results will be the same. The skills required to EQ an audio system are minimal, and easily acquired. As I said before, it is not rocket science. Speed is not even an issue. It should take Jeff much longer considering the setup time, miking from multiple locations, etc. Accuracy is a big difference. Lab grade mics, generators, test disks, and the list goes on. No one is saying it is Rocket Science. But like any skill, it takes more knowledge based on the capability and accuracy of the tools being used, and how they are used. Not to mention the experience which in Jeff's case extends from small rooms to very large including churches, auditoriums, studios, etc. It is easy to oversimplify the process involved to show it's not that different than REW, when in fact it is. Apples & Oranges, even though many of the basic principles are the same. A Brownie camera can take the same picture as a high end Canon or Nikon too. After all, a camera is just a camera!
|
|
|
Post by srrndhound on Feb 28, 2013 19:23:05 GMT -5
I don't think anyone was questioning Jeff's abilities. What was in question is whether those abilities are exclusive to Jeff, and what is required to acquire the ability to properly EQ an audio system. Valid questions! I agree one can calibrate their own system, and perhaps get great results. (I think I did just that. Only took me a year!) But "flat" is a deceptive goal. For one thing, that AccuCal plot we've seen looks like a flat straight line, but that is not the response. It is how well the response conforms with the target curve being used, in that case Small Room THX. In my case I use one similar to Harman's ARCOS curve, very gentle slope at top, bass rise below 100 Hz. Anyway, not all "flats" are the same. In addition, something that does not materially affect the swept response is room decay rate and in particular, resonance decay. This has to be seen with waterfall plots. With very selective PEQ adjustment (or something like XTZ or Antimode), deep nulls can be electrically applied to counteract these resonances. This has a dramatic effect on the sound quality, but is almost invisible in the response plot. This also goes for other aspects of the room acoustics which were shown in the AccuCal report. I think you underestimate the complexity. I agree that this should not discourage anyone from trying their hand at it. It's a great learning experience, and it may even lead to a greater appreciation of the value of bringing in a true expert like Jeff at some point.
|
|
|
Post by garym on Feb 28, 2013 21:35:12 GMT -5
Accuracy is a big difference. Lab grade mics, generators, test disks, and the list goes on. Accuracy makes a big difference only when departures from accuracy are big. In the case of $100 calibrated mics, that difference is 0.2db or less across the spectrum. That is inaudible. www.cross-spectrum.com/cslmics/1280053_mic_report.pdfAnd your PC sound card can generate sine wave tones as accurately as any free-standing signal generator. Looks like the myth and mysticism that prevails in the realm of audiophilia generally extends to room EQing also.
|
|
|
Post by garym on Feb 28, 2013 21:38:00 GMT -5
In addition, something that does not materially affect the swept response is room decay rate and in particular, resonance decay. This has to be seen with waterfall plots. With very selective PEQ adjustment (or something like XTZ or Antimode), deep nulls can be electrically applied to counteract these resonances. I admit I haven't run waterfall plots on my system yet. But REW can do them.
|
|
|
Post by avaddikt on Mar 1, 2013 1:04:47 GMT -5
Accuracy is a big difference. Lab grade mics, generators, test disks, and the list goes on. Accuracy makes a big difference only when departures from accuracy are big. In the case of $100 calibrated mics, that difference is 0.2db or less across the spectrum. That is inaudible. www.cross-spectrum.com/cslmics/1280053_mic_report.pdfAnd your PC sound card can generate sine wave tones as accurately as any free-standing signal generator. Looks like the myth and mysticism that prevails in the realm of audiophilia generally extends to room EQing also. We are talking about the total accuracy of a system, not just one component like a microphone or a PC sound card (if that was relevant). In a system, especially a complex one, every component is dependent on another. Inaccuracy or non-linearity of one device can impact the performance of another resulting in skewed data.
|
|
|
Post by sacdukeman on Mar 1, 2013 1:47:34 GMT -5
It's nice to see my calibration report sparked such robust debate. A few observations:
1. I love my UMC-200 and am thrilled with the purchase. Once the new firmware comes out, all will be hopefully perfect. But, I can't say EmoQ2 is currently acceptable. A too low center and a too hot sub is not a good combo. By my count, at least half the UMC200 buyers who have posted are using "flat" rather than EmoQ.
2. What EmoQ2 can't ever do (and many of us like me can't either) is tell me how to setup two totally different subs harmoniously in terms of placement, gain, crossovers, etc. Most people say that a .2 system only works if you have two of the same sub type and size. Yet, Jeff easily and seamlessly blended a 10" ported and a 12" sealed with vastly different low end extensions. Nor can EmoQ tell me how much more acoustical treatment I need, where and what type. It can't tell me whether the closet door being open impacts treble diffusion enough to be worthwhile. It can't tell me how much lower my mains will go using a steeper crossover slope. Those are the reasons, in addition to the parametric eq tweaking, that I pay Jeff.
3. Jeff also does video/ISF. It was an especially nice treat for him to tell me 4 years post-calibration that my display's grayscale remained spot on and required no tweaking. So, for me, a Jeff visit pays benefits beyond audio.
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Mar 1, 2013 1:50:21 GMT -5
But I made no claim about matching Jeff's abilities. Really....... But unless you're assuming your mic is inaccurate (despite being calibrated) or the REW math is flawed, your results should be as good as any pro's.It sure looks like that is what you are claiming when you say "any pro's" . Bill
|
|
|
Post by yves on Mar 1, 2013 6:45:59 GMT -5
Well, I liked Jeff's review but I haven't received my UMC-200 yet because I was a little late with my decision to order it, so unfortunately I can't talk much about it yet. However, one thing I would like to point out about it is the lack of IP control and streaming capability doesn't bother me one bit. This is because the only thing that matters to me is to get the best possible sound quality my money can buy. I live in Europe, so every added feature I don't need would only raise the cost substantially for someone like me.
|
|
|
Post by avaddikt on Mar 1, 2013 9:36:16 GMT -5
It's nice to see my calibration report sparked such robust debate. A few observations: 1. I love my UMC-200 and am thrilled with the purchase. Once the new firmware comes out, all will be hopefully perfect. But, I can't say EmoQ2 is currently acceptable. A too low center and a too hot sub is not a good combo. By my count, at least half the UMC200 buyers who have posted are using "flat" rather than EmoQ. 2. What EmoQ2 can't ever do (and many of us like me can't either) is tell me how to setup two totally different subs harmoniously in terms of placement, gain, crossovers, etc. Most people say that a .2 system only works if you have two of the same sub type and size. Yet, Jeff easily and seamlessly blended a 10" ported and a 12" sealed with vastly different low end extensions. Nor can EmoQ tell me how much more acoustical treatment I need, where and what type. It can't tell me whether the closet door being open impacts treble diffusion enough to be worthwhile. It can't tell me how much lower my mains will go using a steeper crossover slope. Those are the reasons, in addition to the parametric eq tweaking, that I pay Jeff. 3. Jeff also does video/ISF. It was an especially nice treat for him to tell me 4 years post-calibration that my display's grayscale remained spot on and required no tweaking. So, for me, a Jeff visit pays benefits beyond audio. Your experience was similar to mine, regarding video. When I bought my speakers some years ago, the installer was a dealer who also performed an instrumented calibration. I did some wall treatments which helped even more. I had Jeff do the video cal which was a huge improvement over what I had done with a cal disk. I am still reaping the benefits of all this today. Audio is a much bigger challenge because of the numerous variables that have to be addressed, but is one area Jeff seems to thrive on. I can say, firsthand, there are benefits to a pro-cal IMO, just be careful who you choose. Given all that, I believe attention to details (speaker placement/room condition) along with other means of calibration can yield very noticeable improvements.
|
|
|
Post by weigle2 on Mar 2, 2013 9:47:00 GMT -5
Quote" "A Brownie camera can take the same picture as a high end Canon or Nikon too. After all, a camera is just a camera!"
Your kidding, right? In the snapshot world (the old days), for Joe consumer, maybe. To a photographer today, not even close. It's the lenses, really, that make the difference.
|
|
|
Post by avaddikt on Mar 2, 2013 11:42:40 GMT -5
Quote" "A Brownie camera can take the same picture as a high end Canon or Nikon too. After all, a camera is just a camera!" Your kidding, right? In the snapshot world (the old days), for Joe consumer, maybe. To a photographer today, not even close. It's the lenses, really, that make the difference. Obviously!! I was being sarcastic in response in context to a previous posting.
|
|
|
Post by garym on Mar 2, 2013 12:22:49 GMT -5
It sure looks like that is what you are claiming when you say "any pro's" . Bill You're mistaken. Jeff may have many abilities I cannot match. But that does not mean that in EQing an audio system I cannot match his *results*.
|
|