|
|
Post by markus on Apr 30, 2010 11:28:35 GMT -5
I meant AVR's..I didn't know Yamaha had PEQ's...neat. Someone also mentioned Pioneers MCACC..I'll have to double check my AVR''its from 2006 and may not have PEQ's. That said, even with all it's PEQs the UMC-1 still sounds WAY better.  And it will sound even better without the EQs. It's impossible to correct room problems with an EQ (because it would only work for a small single point). Get better speakers and treat your room accordingly. Best, Markus |
|
|
|
Post by Stevens on Apr 30, 2010 11:34:59 GMT -5
All those links are just marketing blah (couldn't find the Kyriakakis paper). If you find a paper that really explains how Audyssey works I'd like to read it. The Bharitkar & Kyriakakis thesis has actually been turned into a book: link. Bharitkar has also been a very productive academic publisher: link. Happy reading! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by htlover on Apr 30, 2010 11:45:46 GMT -5
I have installed many AudysseyPro-based systems and they have been really well accepted by the owners. On the Pro system, Audyssey shows you graphs of before and after corrections. I have a center channel above a 110" screen and with Audyssey disengaged, the dialogue is coming from the top 1/4 of the screen. With Audyssey engaged, the dialogue is centered in the screen. I also have LF and RF speakers placed 16" from the side walls in an untreated room, and Audyssey corrects for these. How these are done? I don't know.  All I know is it works. I can research how it does it but I am satisfied with what I am getting. I'm not here to say EmoQ is not worth anything, as a previous poster said. I think each system has its worth to everyone. It may mean nothing to some, but definitely worth something to others. |
|
|
|
Post by Stevens on Apr 30, 2010 12:04:09 GMT -5
All those boxes have one fundamental problem that the UMC-1 could solve: they don't optimize the crossover region (subwoofer to mains and surround). This is crucial because optimizing several low frequency sources separately doesn't optimize the summed response. I think you are right about that. All the subwoofer EQ boxes mentioned will correct the subwoofers in isolation and not take into account the overlap with the main speakers at & around the crossover point. As far as I know, it's the same for Audyssey, YPAO et. al. - they all measure the room response of each speaker in isolation and not the sum of all speakers playing simultaneously. I guess that is why many (for example Ntrain42 on this forum) will advocate setting the LP-filter for the sub and the HP-filter for the main speakers with a gap between them, and applying really steep crossover filters, in order to minimize the actual overlap and potential mutual reinforcement & resonance between the two. I guess you then also run the risk of making the gap too wide, i.e. creating a dip instead, and one would have to verify the summed response using some kind of measurement tool (like REW, etc.). |
|
|
|
Post by moodyman on Apr 30, 2010 12:07:37 GMT -5
I guess that is why many (for example Ntrain42 on this forum) will advocate setting the LP-filter for the sub and the HP-filter for the main speakers with a gap between them, and applying really steep crossover filters, in order to minimize the actual overlap and potential mutual reinforcement & resonance between the two. I guess you then also run the risk of making the gap too wide, i.e. creating a dip instead, and one would have to verify the summed response using some kind of measurement tool (like REW, etc.). Nice theory but it would seem that the LP filter and the HP filter in the UMC adjust different channels and therefore do not interact with each other...The LP filter adjusts the LFE channel only..the HP filter does all the other channels (mains, center, surround). Bass management in the UMC-1 is confusing at best.... |
|
|
|
Post by Stevens on Apr 30, 2010 12:19:10 GMT -5
Nice theory but it would seem that the LP filter and the HP filter in the UMC adjust different channels and therefore do not interact with each other...The LP filter adjusts the LFE channel only..the HP filter does all the other channels (mains, center, surround). Yes, you are right. So, I guess you would set the HP-filter in the form of the crossover-frequency for the speakers, and the subwoofer LP-filter using the adjustment knob on the subwoofer itself. The LFE LP-filter in the UMC could be set at whatever frequency you'd like in order to not lose any information from the LFE-track, but this channel would then also be subject to the LP-filter on the subwoofer itself. I guess this all would take a bit of experimentation to get right. |
|
topcat
Emo VIPs 
A Dream Come True
Posts: 532
|
Post by topcat on Apr 30, 2010 14:34:51 GMT -5
I guess that is why many (for example Ntrain42 on this forum) will advocate setting the LP-filter for the sub and the HP-filter for the main speakers with a gap between them, and applying really steep crossover filters, in order to minimize the actual overlap and potential mutual reinforcement & resonance between the two. I guess you then also run the risk of making the gap too wide, i.e. creating a dip instead, and one would have to verify the summed response using some kind of measurement tool (like REW, etc.). Nice theory but it would seem that the LP filter and the HP filter in the UMC adjust different channels and therefore do not interact with each other...The LP filter adjusts the LFE channel only..the HP filter does all the other channels (mains, center, surround). Bass management in the UMC-1 is confusing at best.... (The LP filter adjusts the LFE channel only) Moodman, has this been confirmed by emotiva or just supposition from a forum member? I haven't seen anything from Lonnie on this...so is this really fact? I am not saying it isn't true, just that I question it at this time. Is it possible the FW updates could correct a possible mal-function in this area? |
|
|
|
Post by markus on Apr 30, 2010 15:51:30 GMT -5
is this really fact? I am not saying it isn't true, just that I question it at this time. Is it possible the FW updates could correct a possible mal-function in this area? That's exactly what I asked Emotiva support via email a couple of days ago. Still waiting for an answer. Best, Markus |
|
|
|
Post by markus on Apr 30, 2010 15:57:48 GMT -5
I guess that is why many (for example Ntrain42 on this forum) will advocate setting the LP-filter for the sub and the HP-filter for the main speakers with a gap between them, and applying really steep crossover filters, in order to minimize the actual overlap and potential mutual reinforcement & resonance between the two. Don't think that this can be generalized. Optimally you want to have as many low frequency sources as possible not fewer. The more low frequency sources the smaller the frequency response variance at the listening locations. What you really want to do is smooth the steady state response with all speakers active. This can be done "live" by playing noise and watching the response with a RTA while tweaking settings. Alternatively the transfer function of each speaker is measured. From that data the optimal settigs can be calculated. |
|
|
|
Post by markus on Apr 30, 2010 16:33:52 GMT -5
The Bharitkar & Kyriakakis thesis has actually been turned into a book: link. Bharitkar has also been a very productive academic publisher: link. Happy reading! ;D Much brighter people than me have tried to understand the validity of "fuzzy clusters" and failed. Best, Markus |
|
|
|
Post by moodyman on Apr 30, 2010 16:42:41 GMT -5
I specifically returned my UMC-1 back in February for lack of Sub EQ on the main channels. I supplied a detailed note explaining what I had found. Lonnie had posted that this would be addressed in the next FW update (V6??). It seems its still working the same way so i can only assume its for LFE channel only and is staying that way for the time being.
|
|
|
|
Post by rvallejos on Apr 30, 2010 16:44:49 GMT -5
GGGEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZ- I was just trying to find out which one would be better,j/k. I think I will just keep the Integra for now, the combo with that and my Antimode 8033 sounds good to me for now  - I just need to find a better place for my center speaker. |
|
|
|
Post by markus on Apr 30, 2010 16:51:57 GMT -5
I just need to find a better place for my center speaker. What about placing it in the center between the left and right front speakers |
|
|
|
Post by htlover on Apr 30, 2010 17:22:50 GMT -5
I just need to find a better place for my center speaker. What about placing it in the center between the left and right front speakers +1 |
|
|
|
Post by rvallejos on Apr 30, 2010 18:04:41 GMT -5
Makes the tv to high, those JTR's are thick. Thats why I said BETTER
|
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on Apr 30, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
From experience with Graphic EQs (old dinosaurs), Parametric EQs (Yamaha's own YPAO) and Audyssey MultEQ XT Auto Room EQ Correction (I never tried ARC-1 or Trinnov); Audyssey is best by quite a large margin, in particular in the bass region (below 100 Hz where it counts the most).
That is what I know for fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by ghstudio on Apr 30, 2010 19:07:18 GMT -5
I just received notification that my UMC is ready to ship. I have a standalone audyssey MultiEQ. I will try the UMC using just the UMC EMoQ and then bypassing the EMoQ and using the Audyssey box. I expect the Audyssey to be the better choice, but of course that lists for $3000 when you include the installers kit. It should be an interesting comparison. My room is an acoustic horror so it's a good test |
|
|
|
Post by Stevens on May 1, 2010 14:04:32 GMT -5
GGGEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZ- I was just trying to find out which one would be better,j/k. I Sorry that we took off in your thread.  Markus: before I let it go, you might want to have a look at this link. It's the first I've seen that tries to explain some of the inner workings of the Audyssey algorithms, and then tries to verify the results across every measuring position. Interesting stuff. |
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on May 1, 2010 17:10:12 GMT -5
I believe Audyssey MultEQ XT used 512 FIR (Finite Impulse Response) filters, with the bulk concentrated in the lower audio registers. That is quite sophisticated if you ask me. And it performs not only in the frequency domain but also in the time domain, with phase taken into consideration. Try to do that with a Parametric EQ, let alone a Graphic EQ! * But I heard that people can obtain good results too with Yamaha own YPAO system, and also with Pioneer own Advanced MCACC system. In the end, personally, I'd go with Audyssey MultEQ Pro.  ...You can even see what's going on from the graphs. ...And up to 32 mic positions!  *** But then, if you want graphs, you can always use REW (Room EQ Wizard) with any Automatic Room Correction system. -> @ www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/ |
|
|
|
Post by markus on May 1, 2010 17:56:34 GMT -5
|
|
All I know is it works. I can research how it does it but I am satisfied with what I am getting.
- I just need to find a better place for my center speaker.
...You can even see what's going on from the graphs. ...And up to 32 mic positions! 
