|
|
Post by XTC on Jan 8, 2015 19:28:37 GMT -5
My takeaway from this thread is there is not a one size fits all solution to getting the best sound using Dirac. The OP says that each test position should be a minimum of 18 inches away from any other test position while another post says their outside 2 test positions are only 23 inches apart and both of those are appreciably different than what Dirac recommends. The only thing everyone has in common here is the XMC-1. Everyone has a different room, speaker placement, furniture, etc. With the variety of speakers, amps, etc. available few, if any, have the exact same equipment. I've taken 2 sets of measurements with minor adjustments in mic placement with dramatically different results. I applaud Tony and thank him for sharing his findings with the community. It's an excellent starting point and a reminder that if you do not get results you like using Dirac, try different mic positions. It can make a major difference in your results. I see you have Martin Logan speakers similar in sound dispersion to my Magneplanars. Did you find the close mic spacing best in your situation like me? My up and down mic positions were quite close too. I also would think if you are mainly listening to music(2CH or 2.1) in the sweetspot, close mic positions might be worth a go. My first run I used the positioning recommended by Dirac with good results, meaning I liked the sound better than the preset I created. After reading that AGC should be disabled for the mic (I had some clipping when it was enabled but no clipping after disabling it) I used pretty much the same positions but I did decrease the height differences from my first run. That was a complete failure. Everything sounded muffled, like all my speakers had blankets over them. I plan on doing a couple of more runs this weekend. I'll try the closer mic positions as you suggest and post the results. I have the feeling my Martin Logans might be a bit of a challenge because of their hybrid design, everything over 500 Hz goes through the electro-static membrane and everything under 500 Hz goes through the cone drivers. With my previous Denon receiver I disabled Audyssey for the MLs and it sounded better without it. The XMC-1 sounds better than the Denon even with my original preset. I'm all about the final sound, I don't care how I get there. If it turns out I prefer not to use Dirac, that's fine. I'm more than satisfied with the sound of the XMC-1 without it. |
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Jan 9, 2015 10:08:37 GMT -5
I see you have Martin Logan speakers similar in sound dispersion to my Magneplanars. Did you find the close mic spacing best in your situation like me? My up and down mic positions were quite close too. I also would think if you are mainly listening to music(2CH or 2.1) in the sweetspot, close mic positions might be worth a go. My first run I used the positioning recommended by Dirac with good results, meaning I liked the sound better than the preset I created. After reading that AGC should be disabled for the mic (I had some clipping when it was enabled but no clipping after disabling it) I used pretty much the same positions but I did decrease the height differences from my first run. That was a complete failure. Everything sounded muffled, like all my speakers had blankets over them. I plan on doing a couple of more runs this weekend. I'll try the closer mic positions as you suggest and post the results. I have the feeling my Martin Logans might be a bit of a challenge because of their hybrid design, everything over 500 Hz goes through the electro-static membrane and everything under 500 Hz goes through the cone drivers. With my previous Denon receiver I disabled Audyssey for the MLs and it sounded better without it. The XMC-1 sounds better than the Denon even with my original preset. I'm all about the final sound, I don't care how I get there. If it turns out I prefer not to use Dirac, that's fine. I'm more than satisfied with the sound of the XMC-1 without it. , for a speaker such as the Maggie's. you just need to think about a few things when using dirac. First thing to keep in mind is that sound loses 6db when you double the distance. Second thing to think about is sound changes phase when reflected. So say your 6 ft from your speakers and your speakers are 3 ft off the rear wall. Your listening position will get the initial in phase signal and 6ms later will get a signal that is in phase and 6db lower in volume. Let's add a side wall at 3ft to this. You get all the above plus a out of phase signal at around 15 ms (from the rear of the speaker) (I am grossly simplifying this) at 9ms -7db out of phase from the front of the speaker. and you can keep doing this for every hard surface in the room. To complicate things further. Dirac is going to try to mathematically correct the impulse (I still don't have a firm grasp on how it does this) But if you look at the before impulse created by dirac on your measurements you will see all the reflections that I talked about above and dirac sees those as problems. By taking a wide area of measurements, and since you have twice the reflections, dirac will see more combining and cancelling of waves then in a traditional speaker. If you want to play with the small listening area. Just take one measurement and have dirac calculate it's filter off that. See what that sounds like. If you want get more from dirac, play with your speaker positions by going closer and further from the wall. (Increasing and decreasing how spread out the impulse is.) You can also try to absorb some of the reflective energy with treatments. But in the end dirac will not try to preserve the "liveliness" of your speakers, but rather attempt to provide accuracy. (Which tend not to be the same) Tony |
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Jan 9, 2015 10:20:07 GMT -5
What confuses me the most is the requirement for line of sight for all speakers. I understand why line of sight would be important, but how attainable is it for most surround setups? As I understand after the first mic position at the main listening point (location and height), how would someone go about making sure a mic position that is lower and in front of the main mic position have line of sight of the rear speakers? Here is a pic of my room. If I were to place the mic 8-10 inches below the main listening positions height and slightly in front of the main listening position's location, I would think I would lose line of sight for both rear speakers.  I would think the same situation would happen if I were to do anything behind the main listening position and below, I would lose line of sight to the front three and possible side surround speakers. Am I missing the simple answer to this problem? Edit: Sorry, I was slow to reply and it appears a similar questions was asked. But I still worry about line of sight for anything lower than the main listening position's height. Tony, I really appreciate all your work relative to Dirac. However, I do not understand the "line of sight" rule you propose. To this point I have gotten the best results with the microphone positioning described in the MiniDSP manual relative to the chair illustration. However, I followed the advice of Dirac technical support and made sure the width of the area measured was at least one meter, in my case exactly one meter, and set the upper and lower mic positions 6" above and 6" below ear level. Front to back measurements should be approximately 18". The Measurement pattern for the chair differs from the Emotiva "sofa" illustration in that the chair shows a simple four measurement upper pattern and four measurement lower pattern, instead of the up and down, in an out pattern related to the sofa illustration. Dirac tech support says closer mic positions than that will yield a "dry" sound. It is my understanding that the goal of Dirac is to hear what the main listening position hears and to equalize for that situation. As such, if the listening position is not in direct line of sight to any speaker, and microphone placement was in line of sight, the listener and the microphone would not be hearing the same thing. How then could the resulting EQ be correct? I think this is a little like the situation in Audyssey where Audyssey measures the "acoustic distance" of eac speaker rather than the physical distance, yet many would change the speaker distance set by Audyssey because they thought Audyssey had made a mistake. What do you think? What am I missing? There is no doubt that your work is valuable and real world insights are the best. I suspect that each room may dictate a slightly different microphone placement to derive the best result. Please continue with your experimentation. |
|
|
|
Post by deewan on Jan 9, 2015 11:05:40 GMT -5
I was getting not so good results when I enabled Dirac for my 2CH music. Poor actually. Read somewhere that they did some tests and people prefered when the 9 Points where close together. Just redid my Dirac scan with the points very close together and finally have an excellent result! To give you some idea my 2 outside measurements are around 23" apart from each other. Could be I am using Magneplanar speakers which are known to be quite bad as youy move off center and this could cause Dirac some problems maybe? Quote from another forum where I posted some graphs "One way is to take the Dirac measurements closely spaced at the main listening spot (have a look at Sean Olive's blog - there is an evaluation of different automatic room correction systems, and he concludes that the best results - judged by experienced listeners - were achieved with closely spaced measurements). Doing this, Dirac can actually reduce energy transmitted into the dominant room modes. That should improve the bass significantly."Maybe I am waaaay off here. But wouldn't a smaller mic placement area simply give a better main listening position filter than when mics are placed wider and/or higher and lower? My thought on room correction is that if you use one mic position (or a bunch in a tight area) the room correction would find a solution best for that small area or single seat. The more you move the mic around the listening area, the more the room correction attempts to create a solution to make additional seats sound better but at the expense of not having one really good listening position. Was my thinking wrong? If I was right, then where you place your mic depends on if you want one suh-weet listening seat or 3 fairly good listening seats in your room. |
|
|
|
Post by socketman on Jan 9, 2015 11:15:55 GMT -5
For the first few years I had Audyssey I followed the recommended mic placement to the letter and I was never that impressed with Audyssey. I also found sometimes the measurements would result in a decidedly better result than other times. Someone over at Audioholics made a guide that used a closer mic placement and I tried that and it worked much better than what was recommended in the manual. For me, how I get somewhere is not as important as the fact that I got where I wanted to go. Personally I only want mine to sound its best in the seat where I am sitting, the other people in the other seats don't care as much as I do about the sound anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Jan 9, 2015 11:17:47 GMT -5
I was getting not so good results when I enabled Dirac for my 2CH music. Poor actually. Read somewhere that they did some tests and people prefered when the 9 Points where close together. Just redid my Dirac scan with the points very close together and finally have an excellent result! To give you some idea my 2 outside measurements are around 23" apart from each other. Could be I am using Magneplanar speakers which are known to be quite bad as youy move off center and this could cause Dirac some problems maybe? Quote from another forum where I posted some graphs "One way is to take the Dirac measurements closely spaced at the main listening spot (have a look at Sean Olive's blog - there is an evaluation of different automatic room correction systems, and he concludes that the best results - judged by experienced listeners - were achieved with closely spaced measurements). Doing this, Dirac can actually reduce energy transmitted into the dominant room modes. That should improve the bass significantly."Maybe I am waaaay off here. But wouldn't a smaller mic placement area simply give a better main listening position filter than when mics are placed wider and/or higher and lower? My thought on room correction is that if you use one mic position (or a bunch in a tight area) the room correction would find a solution best for that small area or single seat. The more you move the mic around the listening area, the more the room correction attempts to create a solution to make additional seats sound better but at the expense of not having one really good listening position. Was my thinking wrong? If I was right, then where you place your mic depends on if you want one suh-weet listening seat or 3 fairly good listening seats in your room. According to Dirac technical support you are exactly correct. |
|
tubby
Emo VIPs 
Route 2 in Weekapaug!!!
Posts: 408
|
Post by tubby on Jan 9, 2015 11:46:01 GMT -5
It would be a good experiment to do an analysis in REW of the close vs far spacing to see exactly what the effect is in the MPL and other positions. I will try and find the quote but I believe Flak mentioned the non listening position measurements are not that important to FR but more for impulse and timing. Which makes sense since none of the other positions are at anyone's ear level or necessarily in the seating area. My first though was just leave the mic in the same spot for all 9 measurements to optimize one MLP but apparently that will give a terrible result.
|
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Jan 9, 2015 12:00:02 GMT -5
Tony, I really appreciate all your work relative to Dirac. However, I do not understand the "line of sight" rule you propose. To this point I have gotten the best results with the microphone positioning described in the MiniDSP manual relative to the chair illustration. However, I followed the advice of Dirac technical support and made sure the width of the area measured was at least one meter, in my case exactly one meter, and set the upper and lower mic positions 6" above and 6" below ear level. Front to back measurements should be approximately 18". The Measurement pattern for the chair differs from the Emotiva "sofa" illustration in that the chair shows a simple four measurement upper pattern and four measurement lower pattern, instead of the up and down, in an out pattern related to the sofa illustration. Dirac tech support says closer mic positions than that will yield a "dry" sound. It is my understanding that the goal of Dirac is to hear what the main listening position hears and to equalize for that situation. As such, if the listening position is not in direct line of sight to any speaker, and microphone placement was in line of sight, the listener and the microphone would not be hearing the same thing. How then could the resulting EQ be correct? I think this is a little like the situation in Audyssey where Audyssey measures the "acoustic distance" of eac speaker rather than the physical distance, yet many would change the speaker distance set by Audyssey because they thought Audyssey had made a mistake. What do you think? What am I missing? There is no doubt that your work is valuable and real world insights are the best. I suspect that each room may dictate a slightly different microphone placement to derive the best result. Please continue with your experimentation. , Here is a couple of things to consider. This is what Dirac actually sees. The simple average that is displayed in the before graphs on Dirac LE does not give all the information going on. The image below is a typical room where the mic has line of sight for all measurements that this speaker was measured on. You can tell this by the tight grouping at the high frequencies. In the lower frequencies the wide pattern is quite normal when the microphone is spread out over a good distance. By losing line of site for some of the measurements you will see a wider variation in the upper frequencies as high frequency is absorbed quite easily. This in turn will lower the average for that speaker and result in adding gain on the high end. This is not such a big deal if is on your rear speakers, but adding the gain on the front three will result in over-driven highs.  The ideal solution for those who have high back chairs would be to move the rears higher and get them into positions where you can either get good direct energy to your ears as opposed to the reflected energy that you would be getting currently. (or get chairs that are not so high). If neigher is an option, then your going to be measureing for the reflective energy and placing your microphone between your couch and your rears will have to be done. However, this being said, the first measurement needs to be at ear level regardless of line of site. Now to the second point, By using the chair method for your measurements you are essentially calibrating for just the MLP. This will always sound better as long as your in the MLP. I personally rarely use my theater alone and my left front seat is always occupied by my wife. I still use my seat as the MLP, but I always start my listening tests from her chair. Not being center to the room can easily result in loss of normal male voice frequencies. Tony |
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Jan 9, 2015 15:00:38 GMT -5
Tony, I really appreciate all your work relative to Dirac. However, I do not understand the "line of sight" rule you propose. To this point I have gotten the best results with the microphone positioning described in the MiniDSP manual relative to the chair illustration. However, I followed the advice of Dirac technical support and made sure the width of the area measured was at least one meter, in my case exactly one meter, and set the upper and lower mic positions 6" above and 6" below ear level. Front to back measurements should be approximately 18". The Measurement pattern for the chair differs from the Emotiva "sofa" illustration in that the chair shows a simple four measurement upper pattern and four measurement lower pattern, instead of the up and down, in an out pattern related to the sofa illustration. Dirac tech support says closer mic positions than that will yield a "dry" sound. It is my understanding that the goal of Dirac is to hear what the main listening position hears and to equalize for that situation. As such, if the listening position is not in direct line of sight to any speaker, and microphone placement was in line of sight, the listener and the microphone would not be hearing the same thing. How then could the resulting EQ be correct? I think this is a little like the situation in Audyssey where Audyssey measures the "acoustic distance" of eac speaker rather than the physical distance, yet many would change the speaker distance set by Audyssey because they thought Audyssey had made a mistake. What do you think? What am I missing? There is no doubt that your work is valuable and real world insights are the best. I suspect that each room may dictate a slightly different microphone placement to derive the best result. Please continue with your experimentation. , Here is a couple of things to consider. This is what Dirac actually sees. The simple average that is displayed in the before graphs on Dirac LE does not give all the information going on. The image below is a typical room where the mic has line of sight for all measurements that this speaker was measured on. You can tell this by the tight grouping at the high frequencies. In the lower frequencies the wide pattern is quite normal when the microphone is spread out over a good distance. By losing line of site for some of the measurements you will see a wider variation in the upper frequencies as high frequency is absorbed quite easily. This in turn will lower the average for that speaker and result in adding gain on the high end. This is not such a big deal if is on your rear speakers, but adding the gain on the front three will result in over-driven highs. The ideal solution for those who have high back chairs would be to move the rears higher and get them into positions where you can either get good direct energy to your ears as opposed to the reflected energy that you would be getting currently. (or get chairs that are not so high). If neigher is an option, then your going to be measureing for the reflective energy and placing your microphone between your couch and your rears will have to be done. However, this being said, the first measurement needs to be at ear level regardless of line of site. Now to the second point, By using the chair method for your measurements you are essentially calibrating for just the MLP. This will always sound better as long as your in the MLP. I personally rarely use my theater alone and my left front seat is always occupied by my wife. I still use my seat as the MLP, but I always start my listening tests from her chair. Not being center to the room can easily result in loss of normal male voice frequencies. Tony Thanks for your reply. Since it is almost impossible to maintain line of site to the rear speakers when taking lower/back measurements do you recommend taking the lower measurements further away from the back of the chair or sofa as opposed to making all mic positions higher? Aren't lower measurements that are supposed to be behind the listening position always going to be subject to the reflections cause by the seat back if you have a sofa? I can see how to avoid the problem if you are measuring for a single chair, you just make the measurements a little wider down low and a little higher up top. If you have a sofa and want to do a tight measurement while maintain the best line of sight possible, You would need to do a very wide spread for the lower/back microphone positions, right? Measuring for the front three speakers would seem to be easy except for the reflections experienced by the lower mic positions near the seat back.Is there any special consideration relative to mic placement in a 7.1 system if the rear speakers are bi-poles? |
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Jan 9, 2015 15:20:47 GMT -5
Tony,
Is it your understanding that Dirac LE for Emotiva only corrects for frequencies up to 500Hz and that Dirac Live and the upgraded version of Dirac for Emotiva up to 20K? That is what I am told by Dirac. If that is true line of sight for the higher frequencies, with Dirac LE for Emotiva would not be of great concern. Dirac also suggests that selecting high mic positions will not accentuate high frequencies, since the mics are in line of sight positions, while lower mic positions that are not line of sight will accentuate high frequencies. Therefore, you could customize the sound to different degrees by moving the microphones from an unobstructed to an obstructed position. The more microphones you place in obstructed positions the greater the accentuation of the high frequencies. The upgraded version could make all of this easier with customizable room curves.
|
|
|
|
Post by XTC on Jan 9, 2015 15:37:45 GMT -5
XTC, for a speaker such as the Maggie's. you just need to think about a few things when using dirac. First thing to keep in mind is that sound loses 6db when you double the distance. Second thing to think about is sound changes phase when reflected. So say your 6 ft from your speakers and your speakers are 3 ft off the rear wall. Your listening position will get the initial in phase signal and 6ms later will get a signal that is in phase and 6db lower in volume. Let's add a side wall at 3ft to this. You get all the above plus a out of phase signal at around 15 ms (from the rear of the speaker) (I am grossly simplifying this) at 9ms -7db out of phase from the front of the speaker. and you can keep doing this for every hard surface in the room. To complicate things further. Dirac is going to try to mathematically correct the impulse (I still don't have a firm grasp on how it does this) But if you look at the before impulse created by dirac on your measurements you will see all the reflections that I talked about above and dirac sees those as problems. By taking a wide area of measurements, and since you have twice the reflections, dirac will see more combining and cancelling of waves then in a traditional speaker. If you want to play with the small listening area. Just take one measurement and have dirac calculate it's filter off that. See what that sounds like. If you want get more from dirac, play with your speaker positions by going closer and further from the wall. (Increasing and decreasing how spread out the impulse is.) You can also try to absorb some of the reflective energy with treatments. But in the end dirac will not try to preserve the "liveliness" of your speakers, but rather attempt to provide accuracy. (Which tend not to be the same) Tony Thanks, I think I get it. I'm going to try a number of different mic positions this weekend and let everyone know which provided the sound I prefer. Ken |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 9, 2015 15:57:42 GMT -5
You bring up an interesting issue..... a listening chair with a high back IS a problem (I mean a back that actually is higher than the back of your head). You'll get the most accurate OVERALL result if you perch the microphone on the back of the chair - where none of the speakers is obstructed. However, when you're sitting in the chair, you won't hear the surrounds very much at all. (Bear in mind that this is actually the most accurate situation; because it assumes that the room will be corrected to be most like the original recording venue - and, if you and your chair were to be magically transported to the original recording venue, the chair would be blocking your head from sounds at the rear of the room then as well. If we're actually trying to accurately reproduce the original concert, then, when you stand up you'll hear the surrounds and, when you sit down, they'll be blocked.) If you instead carefully position the microphone where your head normally is, in front of the chair back, then the highs from your surrounds will be boosted - a lot - in an attempt to deliver a flat frequency response at that position. This will probably result in your hearing the sound from those surrounds as being more or less flat (the correct proportion of sound at each frequency), but everyone else in the room will be getting their ears melted by the surrounds, and what you hear will have way too high a percentage of reflected sound (since, blocked by the chair back, most of the highs from the surrounds you'll get to hear will be those that have reflected off the side and front walls). This will probably sound a bit odd - even though it doesn't sound shrill or dull (it may sound very echo-ey). The problem here is that there is no "right" solution. If you were to magically be transported to the site of the original recording (you and your chair), you wouldn't be able to hear the stuff that was happening behind you because the chair back would block it. Unfortunately, there's no way to make the chair magically disappear. (As ansat said, your best solution would be to get a lower chair, or raise your surrounds, or, I'll add, you could get one of those mesh back chairs so you - and the microphone - can hear the surrounds properly. Problem solved.   Tony, I really appreciate all your work relative to Dirac. However, I do not understand the "line of sight" rule you propose. To this point I have gotten the best results with the microphone positioning described in the MiniDSP manual relative to the chair illustration. However, I followed the advice of Dirac technical support and made sure the width of the area measured was at least one meter, in my case exactly one meter, and set the upper and lower mic positions 6" above and 6" below ear level. Front to back measurements should be approximately 18". The Measurement pattern for the chair differs from the Emotiva "sofa" illustration in that the chair shows a simple four measurement upper pattern and four measurement lower pattern, instead of the up and down, in an out pattern related to the sofa illustration. Dirac tech support says closer mic positions than that will yield a "dry" sound. It is my understanding that the goal of Dirac is to hear what the main listening position hears and to equalize for that situation. As such, if the listening position is not in direct line of sight to any speaker, and microphone placement was in line of sight, the listener and the microphone would not be hearing the same thing. How then could the resulting EQ be correct? I think this is a little like the situation in Audyssey where Audyssey measures the "acoustic distance" of eac speaker rather than the physical distance, yet many would change the speaker distance set by Audyssey because they thought Audyssey had made a mistake. What do you think? What am I missing? There is no doubt that your work is valuable and real world insights are the best. I suspect that each room may dictate a slightly different microphone placement to derive the best result. Please continue with your experimentation. , Here is a couple of things to consider. This is what Dirac actually sees. The simple average that is displayed in the before graphs on Dirac LE does not give all the information going on. The image below is a typical room where the mic has line of sight for all measurements that this speaker was measured on. You can tell this by the tight grouping at the high frequencies. In the lower frequencies the wide pattern is quite normal when the microphone is spread out over a good distance. By losing line of site for some of the measurements you will see a wider variation in the upper frequencies as high frequency is absorbed quite easily. This in turn will lower the average for that speaker and result in adding gain on the high end. This is not such a big deal if is on your rear speakers, but adding the gain on the front three will result in over-driven highs. The ideal solution for those who have high back chairs would be to move the rears higher and get them into positions where you can either get good direct energy to your ears as opposed to the reflected energy that you would be getting currently. (or get chairs that are not so high). If neigher is an option, then your going to be measureing for the reflective energy and placing your microphone between your couch and your rears will have to be done. However, this being said, the first measurement needs to be at ear level regardless of line of site. Now to the second point, By using the chair method for your measurements you are essentially calibrating for just the MLP. This will always sound better as long as your in the MLP. I personally rarely use my theater alone and my left front seat is always occupied by my wife. I still use my seat as the MLP, but I always start my listening tests from her chair. Not being center to the room can easily result in loss of normal male voice frequencies. Tony |
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Jan 9, 2015 16:28:08 GMT -5
Thanks, I think I get it. I'm going to try a number of different mic positions this weekend and let everyone know which provided the sound I prefer. Ken Ken, Feel free to PM me or post here if you still have questions. Sometimes I get a little technical in my rants  and I don't mind working 1:1 when needed. Tony |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Ronesia on Jan 9, 2015 23:01:42 GMT -5
This is my crazy tripod turned boom mic that I used to run Dirac. I made sure that each position had line of sight to all drivers on all speakers when I ran the setup. That meant raising up the positions a little. As you can see the room has been heavily treated for acoustics. My positions went from armrest to armrest.  Cheers Mark |
|
|
|
Post by socketman on Jan 9, 2015 23:11:18 GMT -5
This is my crazy tripod turned boom mic that I used to run Dirac. I made sure that each position had line of sight to all drivers on all speakers when I ran the setup. That meant raising up the positions a little. As you can see the room has been heavily treated for acoustics. My positions went from armrest to armrest. Cheers Mark That tripod looks like one of those things in war of the worlds. That's a beautiful view you have there. Must be terrible having to look at that every morning. |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jan 9, 2015 23:12:31 GMT -5
This is my crazy tripod turned boom mic that I used to run Dirac. I made sure that each position had line of sight to all drivers on all speakers when I ran the setup. That meant raising up the positions a little. As you can see the room has been heavily treated for acoustics. My positions went from armrest to armrest. Cheers Mark I hope all of those walls are treated, all i see is reflective surfaces!!! Except for the pretty absorbant cat,,,,,,he,,,he,,,he,,,,, Too cute!! |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Ronesia on Jan 9, 2015 23:16:29 GMT -5
It's very adjustable, but I had it stretched so far over the couch I had to use my steadicam as a counterweight on the back leg. Yes, waking to birds chirping and the sunrise over the pacific is very nice.
Cheers
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Ronesia on Jan 9, 2015 23:19:11 GMT -5
I hope all of those walls are treated, all i see is reflective surfaces!!! Except for the pretty absorbant cat,,,,,,he,,,he,,,he,,,,, Too cute!! Yes, the concrete has been treated with both primer and paint.  I did put a rug down in front of the mains. Cheers Mark |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jan 9, 2015 23:40:41 GMT -5
Mike, primer and paint doesn't make it as treatment, does it?? Place more cats in the room!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by XTC on Jan 11, 2015 11:47:08 GMT -5
Thanks, I think I get it. I'm going to try a number of different mic positions this weekend and let everyone know which provided the sound I prefer. Ken Ken, Feel free to PM me or post here if you still have questions. Sometimes I get a little technical in my rants and I don't mind working 1:1 when needed. Tony Thanks for the offer of 1:1 help and if your response was you "ranting" it was the mildest rant I've ever received. Your technical explanation was confirmed with the results from my runs. I tried a single point run and my fronts sounded as good as I've ever heard them with 2.0 material. However, with 5.1 sources the center and surrounds sounded awful as I would expect. When I ran 9 points closely grouped the results sounded fantastic! I chose my points to cover anywhere I might sit comfortably in my main listening chair. Basically one foot to the left, right, front and back as extremes. The height span was 4 inches up and 4 inches down. Not only did the 5.1 sources sound great, but the 2.0 sources are off the charts great! The best I ever heard my ML's sound. The bass is tight and the vocals sound warmer. I think the center and surrounds might have sounded a little better with the wider mic placements, but that could be compared with how they sounded to the front speakers poorer SQ with the wider mic placements. I'll live for the week with the current filters and maybe play some more next weekend. Thanks to you and Rocky500 for your suggestions. |
|
and I don't mind working 1:1 when needed. 
I did put a rug down in front of the mains. 
