EmoQ umc results

[carlp336]

Generally everyone is seeing odd distance and crossover results?

I mean I have a block walled room with a low ceiling but it's square and speaker placement is cemetrical. I understand the phase and crossover theory mentioned in the video but my result distances and crossover results are crazy. For example my fl and fr are both 10.5' from sweet spot not 3' and 30' (results given on two back to back tests) the crossovers and phase on my fronts can't be that different from each ie: 100 and ok phase to reverse and 250. Is this right?
I know it's a "starting point" but I'm no elertronic genius. Seems most are seeing some what similar results.


Thoughts?

[monkeypimp]

My results are just as crazy....I just flatout think EmoQ doesn't work at all.

[carlp336]

I'm hoping more will chime in with the same. I know my room isn't the best sonically aounding place but dang this is whack

[hemster]

Upon running EMO-Q the first time after the v6 update, my results were spot on! Distances were accurate to within 1 foot and crossovers were also reasonable, except for 1 speaker which was set to 250 Hz. However, I had to run it again as curiosity got the better of me... and the results were out by 3 feet (plus speakers set to 250 Hz). Another attempt was consistent with the 2nd one. In the end, I gave up and set it all up manually.

[Mischief]

Yeah, those ol' sound waves and reflections are a killer. A square room has similar peaks and dips in all dimensions. So the room induced peaks and valleys are all multiplied by each other resulting in much deeper valleys and much higher peaks. A non-similar dimensioned room might have typical peak to peak responses in the range of +/-20dB, most have less than that. A square room with all modes excited can easily exceed +/-40dB. You aren't hearing what's on the disc or what the equipment manufacturers intended when you have that much variation induced just by the room. With that much variation it's all but impossible to bring the overall response down to acceptable levels of flatness.


In the mid to high end of the frequency range, slap echo is multiplied and stays in the room too long which smears clarity, ambience and imaging potential. The only solution to slap echo is treating all of the walls, ceiling and floor with absortive materials which tends to then take the mid to high frequencies away all together. The room sounds too alive when not treated and too dead when it is treated.

[Indycolts]

yes mine was really way off each time I ran emoq. When I was doing the test it was testing my right surround and the test tones were coming from my Left surround and then it came to testing my Left surround the test tones were coming from my Right surround.

[darklight0tr]

I got great results when I used EmoQ minus the borked looking crossovers, which I left they way they are as I have no tools to recalibrate them manually. I can hear a ton more detail than before.

As for the distances, there seem to be bugs with the EmoQ results pages. For example, it showed my subwoofer distance as about 5 ft (way too close), but when I finished EmoQ and went into the speaker settings it was set to 20 ft. I was scratching my head at that one.

[carlp336]

Apr 19, 2010 8:03:07 GMT -5 Mischief said:

Yeah, those ol' sound waves and reflections are a killer. A square room has similar peaks and dips in all dimensions. So the room induced peaks and valleys are all multiplied by each other resulting in much deeper valleys and much higher peaks. A non-similar dimensioned room might have typical peak to peak responses in the range of +/-20dB, most have less than that. A square room with all modes excited can easily exceed +/-40dB. You aren't hearing what's on the disc or what the equipment manufacturers intended when you have that much variation induced just by the room. With that much variation it's all but impossible to bring the overall response down to acceptable levels of flatness.


In the mid to high end of the frequency range, slap echo is multiplied and stays in the room too long which smears clarity, ambience and imaging potential. The only solution to slap echo is treating all of the walls, ceiling and floor with absortive materials which tends to then take the mid to high frequencies away all together. The room sounds too alive when not treated and too dead when it is treated.

so do you think the emoQ may be trying to rectify or over compensate for my room acoustics ?
thats valid, but im confused as to how others are seeing similar results in a non similar room. and the fact that i can run it back to back and not touch anything and the results will vary.

i have an SPL meter and i can get the levels and distances set accurately but as far a EQ goes i have no idea what to do.

[hemster]

Apr 19, 2010 8:43:08 GMT -5 carlp336 said:

...i have an SPL meter and i can get the levels and distances set accurately but as far a EQ goes i have no idea what to do.

I understand and empathize with you. I also have the same dilemma. For now, I've saved 3 different results of running EMO-Q as the 3 EQ settings and will continue the trial and error of listening to each for different types of music & movies to see if the sound is better or worse. Then determine a further course of action.

[manonfire]

i believe the emoQ frequency settings basicly give you a starting point, every room is going to be different and also peoples tastes a different also. me personaly i have a setting for movies and one for music and one the emoQ produced for me when i ran calibration. but pretty much i set my eq frequencies to my liking for both movies and music.

[manonfire]

oh by the way when i ran calibration the settings for distance were within a foot so pretty close. now as for the frequencies it set my mains to full range center to 250hz rears to 120hz, sub at 70hz and it did say my right rear was out of phase when it wasnt. i ran it a few times and pretty much got same results. out of curiosity i did decide to sit mic in middle of room to see what it come up with distances were good once again but xovers and phase were all out of wack. if i recall it said one of my fronts and rears were out of phase along with the sub

[Mischief]

Many things can contribute to Emo being off. I have been in a lot of rooms with high ceilings, cinder walls, ETC. that really make for wild frequency shifts. Emo may be finding large peaks or valleys which give it an incorrect value for crossovers and even distance.

If you have a bad enough reflection EmoQ may pick it up instead of the source (speaker) which will throw off distances. This can also cause a lot of phasing problems that normal calibration may not pick up.

Hardwood floors, three walled or uneven walled rooms, and many other things can throw off settings.

I can't say that Emo is working correctly, I can only say that it is a possible cause of many peoples problems.

Which leads to why do other auto systems not have the problem. I believe that EmoQ is really a step above what the others do. Emo gives much more control and isn't dumbed down, it is a powerful tool for helping with room issues. The other systems are more for quick and fast setup.

Quick and fast (and accurate) are really nice and a simple setup option along with an advanced set up would be nice.

[ICBM99]

One thing I've been curious about is a nearfield test. My H/K does the standard at seating location, but then it also does a nearfield (about 1' away with the mic pointed at the speaker). Would that help nail down some of the settings? Or is that not proper because its not getting all the reflections, and therefore not correcting the room?

[Mischief]

I would suspect that a near field adds a data set for that software, I don't think it will work with the UMC-1.

[moodyman]

Apr 19, 2010 11:42:18 GMT -5 Mischief said:

I believe that EmoQ is really a step above what the others do.

How do you qualify that statement?? It seems nobody is getting consistent EMO-Q results. I was disappointed with EMO-Q when I had my UMC. My Pioneer receiver from 2006 gives consistent results everytime I run MCACC. I also noticed that the MCACC seems to take a lot more measurements than EMO-Q.

Bugs aside the UMC certainly has advantages over my Pioneer Elite receiver but EMO-Q doesn't seem to be one of them.

[Mischief]

Most of the software available is simplified for the user, some provide additional capabilities with the assistance of a professional who has specialized tools. EmoQ offers more capability out of the box, it should be capable of doing a better job in the hands of a knowledgeable user.

Note that I use "it should" it seems it doesn't in many instances and I can't be certain why some users are having problems.

This is my experience. I don't yet own, but have set up 4 UMC-1 systems for family and friends. In each instance I was told Emo was insane, the settings were much like I have seen described here.

All of these rooms have terrible sonic issues. In each case I was able to run EmoQ again, taking great care to follow Lonnie's instructions, and each time the results were nearly perfect. I did need to do some minor tweaking on distance and some major tweaks on crossovers. It was easy to see why the crossovers were off, the rooms all had terrible peaks and valleys, a simple Ratshack meter showed exactly why the crossover decisions were made by EmoQ.

Everything now sounds terrific. If these people knew their rooms the setup would have been easy. A sound meter and calibration disc will quickly identify problems. No software will magically make your room perfect, it often makes it worse. You still have to know your room and help it.

I am not in any way saying EmoQ doesn't have issues or that people with problems don't know what they are doing, it looks like there are problems. I can say that my experience has been with users who are less savvy than most people who post here, which was the cause of their problems.

[ntrain42]

I really have to ask here: Does anyone really need a function like EmoQ to figure out what the proper xover slopes should be, the speaker distances, and even levels? All you need is the specification sheet for your speakers(or just look at the driver array), tape measure, and maybe a cheap radioshack SPL meter that will run you $10 and 5 minutes of your time. The amount of time people fiddle with a function(be it EmoQ, Audessy,MCAC etc) that honestly will never be as accurate as your own common sense just befuddles me. It really isnt a hard arduous task at all doing it manually and the results will ALWAYS be better.................

[ICBM99]

Is there an easy way to do that with some EQing?

I can understand overall level but how do you correct the nulls and peaks within the fq spectrum?

Is that done with specific hz sine waves and a whole lot of patience?

[carlp336]

mischief what of lonnies instructions are you referring, the 2 vids on the emotv? didnt really see them a instruction to be honest, more a quick definition of y emoq does what it does.

[ntrain42]

Apr 19, 2010 13:44:31 GMT -5 ICBM99 said:

Is there an easy way to do that with some EQing?

I can understand overall level but how do you correct the nulls and peaks within the fq spectrum?

Is that done with specific hz sine waves and a whole lot of patience?

I was just talking about setting the overall speaker levels, xovers and distances, that part can easily be done manually very easily. If your talking about fine tuning with the 11 band EQ, yeah you will need a pink noise generator of some type with a calibration mic.