ratmice
Emo VIPs 
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Posts: 1,853
|
Post by ratmice on Feb 13, 2010 10:47:17 GMT -5
Sent them a couple of days ago. Any ideas. Big Dan is out of town for a few days, but I will remind him when he gets back. I just didn't want you to think he was ignoring you.  No, I didn't think that as he was so responsive initially. You guys have enough on your plate at the moment. On another note, I think the unit sounds great, as do most users, it's just the EQ acting wonky (phase/distance/crossover). I have it set up using my SPL meter and can easily wait to tweak the EQ. Thanks for the update on Dan's whereabouts  - not necessary, but much appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbailey on Feb 13, 2010 13:37:42 GMT -5
It seems to me that for Lonnie's explanation of how relative phase is detected, it would be dependent on the frequency used for the test. I.e., whether the mic detects a rising or falling leading edge would depend not only on the distance from the source, but also on the exact frequency (wavelength.) It's hard for me to see how this works with white (or pink, since the second phase seems colored in comparison with the first) noise unless the initial sound is controlled to some frequency. What am I missing here? Perhaps Lonnie's explanation was over-simplified? I also had a bright [?] idea why the Emo-Q distance measurements in my room are uniformly long by quite a bit: We live at 8100 ft. altitude, so perhaps the speed of sound (needed for the distance calculation, I assume) is less up here? Wrong. This doesn't work because the speed of sound doesn't vary significantly with air density, just with temperature. Check it out for yourself. I'm now wondering if the wacky crossover suggestions I'm getting are related to reflections from the back walls. My surrounds are mounted close to the ceiling but out a bit from the hard adobe walls. The front speakers are ~2 ft. from an irregular rock wall. The ceiling has vigas (logs) and may be introducing anomalies as well. Lonnie? Pics are here: gallery.me.com/jimbailey/100008 |
|
|
|
Post by mdanderson on Feb 13, 2010 22:24:34 GMT -5
I ran Emo-Q today but my results were rather out of sort. I had distances that were not correct and crossovers that were all over the place. I only ran it one time. I am afraid to run it again because the tones are just so loud. I am afraid it might damage my speakers.
|
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on Feb 13, 2010 23:22:43 GMT -5
It seems to me that for Lonnie's explanation of how relative phase is detected, it would be dependent on the frequency used for the test. I.e., whether the mic detects a rising or falling leading edge would depend not only on the distance from the source, but also on the exact frequency (wavelength.) It's hard for me to see how this works with white (or pink, since the second phase seems colored in comparison with the first) noise unless the initial sound is controlled to some frequency. What am I missing here? Perhaps Lonnie's explanation was over-simplified? I also had a bright [?] idea why the Emo-Q distance measurements in my room are uniformly long by quite a bit: We live at 8100 ft. altitude, so perhaps the speed of sound (needed for the distance calculation, I assume) is less up here? Wrong. This doesn't work because the speed of sound doesn't vary significantly with air density, just with temperature. Check it out for yourself. I'm now wondering if the wacky crossover suggestions I'm getting are related to reflections from the back walls. My surrounds are mounted close to the ceiling but out a bit from the hard adobe walls. The front speakers are ~2 ft. from an irregular rock wall. The ceiling has vigas (logs) and may be introducing anomalies as well. Lonnie? Pics are here: gallery.me.com/jimbailey/100008Jim Nice pictures of your HT setup. From what I could see you have a very challenging room to try calibrating and equalizing the response. I imagine you have had to work very hard trying to get the best sound you can. You have reflective surfaces every place you look. In a room as challenging as yours, I think my headphone usage would skyrocket. |
|
dfdo
Emo VIPs
Rocking with the 'E'
Posts: 47
|
Post by dfdo on Feb 14, 2010 14:58:40 GMT -5
I got the f/w updated without any issues. However, Emo-Q is a different matter. After 3 tries the results I get are somewhat weird. Emo-Q says all my surround speakers are out of phase  Even though, the polarities are correct I switch them to satisfy the Emo-Q. With all that my final results are almost like zductive's. Crossover points are all over. Very disappointing. I have calibrated a Denon HT which uses Audyssey before. It is not that great either. But Emo-Q crossover points seems way off. |
|
|
|
Post by SticknStones on Feb 14, 2010 15:23:43 GMT -5
It seems to me that for Lonnie's explanation of how relative phase is detected, it would be dependent on the frequency used for the test. I.e., whether the mic detects a rising or falling leading edge would depend not only on the distance from the source, but also on the exact frequency (wavelength.) It's hard for me to see how this works with white (or pink, since the second phase seems colored in comparison with the first) noise unless the initial sound is controlled to some frequency. What am I missing here? Perhaps Lonnie's explanation was over-simplified? I also had a bright [?] idea why the Emo-Q distance measurements in my room are uniformly long by quite a bit: We live at 8100 ft. altitude, so perhaps the speed of sound (needed for the distance calculation, I assume) is less up here? Wrong. This doesn't work because the speed of sound doesn't vary significantly with air density, just with temperature. Check it out for yourself. I'm now wondering if the wacky crossover suggestions I'm getting are related to reflections from the back walls. My surrounds are mounted close to the ceiling but out a bit from the hard adobe walls. The front speakers are ~2 ft. from an irregular rock wall. The ceiling has vigas (logs) and may be introducing anomalies as well. Lonnie? Pics are here: gallery.me.com/jimbailey/100008You did a nice job on your speaker mount project and the room looks quite comfy! Well done! |
|
|
|
Post by flamingeye on Feb 14, 2010 16:06:51 GMT -5
OK, what I mean by right is speaker trim, x-over, distance - the basic, easy stuff. We get it YOU don't trust anything but your RTA and expensive mic. However, there really are thousands of people that do like what the auto calibration systems do in their setups. I happen t be one of them - MCACC does a great job with my room compared to no EQ. YMMV. It might get the "easy" stuff right, but whats the point of getting the easy stuff right, it probably would take you just as long to manually punch in the specs needed. When it comes to the "hard" EQing part, your right I dont trust MCACC,Audessy,EMO-Q etc. because experience has shown all those systems to be poor at smoothing out the in room EQ at best. Many times making certain frequencies worse off. Again you dont need expensive hardware. Grab the shareware RTA software from HTshack and a $50 Behringer ECM8000 spectrum mic. and your good to go. I agree with ntrain 100% on this one auto EQ is just for a starting point then you need to go in and tweak it in , you can get a RTA software for free to $100 ( level 1 to 4 ) I sedgiest at lest level 3 for $69 and a $50 mice it will more then pay for it`s self the first time you use it in the way your system will sound I can`t believe I ever lived with out it , in saying that though I agree with the others here that Emo-Q should be more accurate then it is there must be something wrong in the way it`s taking measurements or how it`s being implemented etc... but even my YPAO can be wacko at times and giving me completely wrong readings and I have to do at least 3 to 4 tries before they even get close to a good starting point and the EQ always needs adjusted no mater what it`s never quit right , auto EQ is not intended to be the end all it`s intended to be a starting point even audyssey though audyssey may give you a better starting point then most it`s still not as accurate as manually calibrating with RTA software and a good mice $150 is a small price to pay to get that HT/music nirvana perfection IMHO |
|
|
|
Post by moodyman on Feb 14, 2010 16:24:18 GMT -5
It might get the "easy" stuff right, but whats the point of getting the easy stuff right, it probably would take you just as long to manually punch in the specs needed. When it comes to the "hard" EQing part, your right I dont trust MCACC,Audessy,EMO-Q etc. because experience has shown all those systems to be poor at smoothing out the in room EQ at best. Many times making certain frequencies worse off. Again you dont need expensive hardware. Grab the shareware RTA software from HTshack and a $50 Behringer ECM8000 spectrum mic. and your good to go. I agree with ntrain 100% on this one auto EQ is just for a starting point then you need to go in and tweak it in , you can get a RTA software for free to $100 ( level 1 to 4 ) I sedgiest at lest level 3 for $69 and a $50 mice it will more then pay for it`s self the first time you use it in the way your system will sound I can`t believe I ever lived with out it , in saying that though I agree with the others here that Emo-Q should be more accurate then it is there must be something wrong in the way it`s taking measurements or how it`s being implemented etc... but even my YPAO can be wacko at times and giving me completely wrong readings and I have to do at least 3 to 4 tries before they even get close to a good starting point and the EQ always needs adjusted no mater what it`s never quit right , auto EQ is not intended to be the end all it`s intended to be a starting point even audyssey though audyssey may give you a better starting point then most it`s still not as accurate as manually calibrating with RTA software and a good mice $150 is a small price to pay to get that HT/music nirvana perfection IMHO umm..ok whats does level 1-4 mean??..and why do you suggest lvl 3??  |
|
|
|
Post by flamingeye on Feb 14, 2010 16:58:23 GMT -5
The level 1 to 4 is 1 is free and gives you the basic functions and the graphs are hard to read - level 4 is $100 and is fully functional each level gives you more functions a more powerful program/software and cost a little more as you go up levels I suggested level 3 because it`s $69 and gives you a fully functioning software with great graphs but minus a few capabilities the level 4 has but not really needed for room calibrations
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcohen on Feb 14, 2010 18:10:55 GMT -5
Please give examples/recommedations for those of us that are only aware of REW.
|
|
|
|
Post by flamingeye on Feb 14, 2010 18:16:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcohen on Feb 14, 2010 18:59:29 GMT -5
Sorry, I didn't realize you were already referring to a specific product. When you mentioned different levels of RTA, I thought there was a standard for what features could be found at different levels amongst different products. Thanks for the link.
|
|
|
|
Post by mdanderson on Feb 14, 2010 19:20:55 GMT -5
I ran Emo-Q today but my results were rather out of sort. I had distances that were not correct and crossovers that were all over the place. I only ran it one time. I am afraid to run it again because the tones are just so loud. I am afraid it might damage my speakers. I just wanted to say that I am not being critical of the Emo-Q application. I just wanted to post what I came up with. I am sure it is my room and not the fault of the EMO-Q. I watched both videos from Dan and Lonnie prior to trying EMO-Q and they were very informative and I appreciated them taking the time to do it. The UMC-1 is a fantastic product and I am enjoying very much. I went ahead set my distances and crossovers manually and it sounds very good. I may end up trying EMO-Q again sometime. Thanks. |
|
hemster
Global Moderator 
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,951
|
Post by hemster on Feb 15, 2010 1:19:29 GMT -5
I agree that that movement of the mic by a small amount can change the crossover point.
Here's what I do not understand however:
1. You run Emo-Q and record the values. It finds 7.1 speakers and sets them at 80 Hz. Speaker distances are within 1 foot. Not bad!
2. Without making ANY changes, you run it again. The results for the most part are similar.. except for things like:
Now it does not detect the rear speakers. It sets the front left correctly (like in the previous step) but the front right is set to 250Hz and the distance is off by 3 feet.
3. Run again (remember, no changes, no moving the mic etc.!) and results are yet again different to step 2 above. Only 5.1 speakers detected and now the surround right is set to 250 Hz.
These were my findings over the weekend. I made adjustments using a sound meter and measure tape, so I'm up and running with excellent sound. But the engineer within me is still wondering why the discrepancies above? I am not expecting the same results each run. Just some sort of consistency, that's all.
And before people chide me, let me say that I do consider equalization tools as a start point, not a panacea. I am not expecting a miracle cure!
Also, that I am very happy with my UMC-1!! Thanks Emotiva for an excellent product at a very reasonable price-point.
|
|
orange5814
Emo VIPs
Proud to be an Emotiva customer
Posts: 236
|
Post by orange5814 on Feb 15, 2010 23:21:45 GMT -5
OK, so here goes. Later this week I am expecting delivery of an Audio Control SA-3050a. This device is a laboratory grade 1/3 octave Real Time Analyzer (RTA). I used this device extensively when I worked in the Pro sound areana to equalize and "tune" or "ring out" studios, theaters, outdoor areanas, and stadiums. I worked for Sea World for 6 years as Lead of the Technical Services Department, and we were responsible for the design, installation, and maintenance of all of the sound, light, video, and laser systems for the parks. That information being said, here is where the Audio Control Analyzer will be of help to me, and hopefully all of the EMO-Q users. Using the 'pink noise' function in the speaker calibration menu of the UMC-1, I will be able to actually see the response curve of my room. I can store the curve for each speaker in the RTA, and then use the device to "average" the curves. I can look at the averages for any combination of speakers. Of most importance are the averages for L,C, R; the averages for L,R, Sub; and the average for C, Sub. After I have this information, I intend to compare the room averages with the "EMO-Q" curves that the UMC-1 has set with it's software. Doing this will allow me to objectively verify the accuracy of the EMO-Q software. I will report the results of this test on this forum. I have spoken to Lonnie directly about this, and he is excited to hear the results of the test, as he believes the EMO-Q is acting as it is designed. This test will allow us to confirm that EMO-Q is operating as intended. Looking at my equalization curves for EMO-Q, I believe at first glance that the system is operating normally. That being said, I did have to manually adjust some of the distances and the crossover frequencies slightly. However, my experience with the room correction feature is that MY system sounds better to me with EMO-Q than without. I am by no means an expert. I am an enthusiast with a background in sound reinforcement. I feel that one of the best ways to properly equalize a room is with the help of an RTA. That being said, the most important thing is the room itself, and the proper setup and placement of your speakers. NO EQUALIZER can "fix" a bad room. The intention is to help smooth the overall "curve." Our hearing is based on presence as opposed to abscence. Thus we are more likely to notice frequencies that are "hot" than those frequencies that are lacking when we look at an RTA curve. This is why most EQ's, when properly setup, appear to cut more than they boost. This is currently what I am seeing with EMO-Q. A wise man once said, " If you want to make it sound better, you cut; if you want to make it sound different, you boost." Additionally, boosting a frequency can also be a waste of amplifier power. Remember, a 3db boost at any particular frequency requires 2 times the amplification. Further, the EQ on the UMC-1 is a 1 octave design. I will be looking at a 1/3 octave curve, so it will only be possible to smooth the curve. I hope that this helps, I am really looking forward to this experiment, and I hope to get this taken care of this weekend. Again, I am glad to post the results here. For anyone not familliar with the Audio Control RTA, here is a link to their web site: www.audiocontrol.com/t37/5650/19939/Acoustic-Analyzers/Real-Time-Spectrum-Analyzer-SA--3051.htmlThis is the newer model of the Analyzer that I have, but it is essentially the same. I should also note that my RTA was recently sent to Audio Control for a calibration and function check and it recieved a clean bill of health. Regards, Scott Barr |
|
|
|
Post by ripcordaff on Feb 15, 2010 23:32:59 GMT -5
I am interested in the results of this RTA analysis, but what confuses me is that if it is operating "as designed" then why does it give different results with each identical run as reported by numerous forum users. With no microphone movements or any changes whatsoever speakers will appear\disappear, crossovers will change, trim levels will fluctuate. Furthermore, if the system is supposed to set general reference levels why does everyone's sub appear to be about 20 dbs too hot?
What gets me is that I have not seen any forum post to the effect "Emo-Q worked Great! No problems!" It seems to me that the only people that have gotten the system to work as designed either have an RTA or work at emo HQ.
I WANT to like this product, I really do. It is a beautiful design and I want to keep it, but at this rate...I dunno..
|
|
orange5814
Emo VIPs
Proud to be an Emotiva customer
Posts: 236
|
Post by orange5814 on Feb 15, 2010 23:45:03 GMT -5
I certainly can not answer all of your questions about EMO-Q, but I can share some of my experiences. When I had my Onkyo 805 and my Integra pre-amp, they used Audyssey Multi-EQ XT; that system often would produce different results after multiple attempts without changing mic or speaker placement. The difference here is that EMO-Q is showing you the EQ curve that it is setting. I beleive that Audyssey's licensing agreement does not allow users to "see" the EQ curve after the software has made it's corrections. Additionally, EMO-Q does not average its' results, so running it multiple times yeilds no functional benefit. The same holds true for Audyssey BTW. I understand your frustration and I hope that I can only ease some of the concern that EMO-Q is doing a proper job EQUALIZING the room. Even with the Audessy software, I had to go in and manually correct some speaker distances and crossover points. I also had to adjust channel trims slightly. Perhaps I just except this as part of setting up the system, or maybe I am just an Audio Geek . I truly hope that I can help, and my goal is to help ease people's concerns that software is at least handling the room correction properly. I am also in complete agreement that an 'end user' should not need an RTA to setup their Home Theater. However, at a minimum, a radio shack SPL meter and a good test disc, can bring a lot of satisfaction to setting up your rig. |
|
|
|
Post by bobbart on Feb 15, 2010 23:50:20 GMT -5
Still doesn't explain why people are getting eq results for speakers that aren't even connected. Something is wrong there.
|
|
ratmice
Emo VIPs
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Posts: 1,853
|
Post by ratmice on Feb 16, 2010 0:18:47 GMT -5
I certainly can not answer all of your questions about EMO-Q, but I can share some of my experiences. When I had my Onkyo 805 and my Integra pre-amp, they used Audyssey Multi-EQ XT; that system often would produce different results after multiple attempts without changing mic or speaker placement. The difference here is that EMO-Q is showing you the EQ curve that it is setting. I beleive that Audyssey's licensing agreement does not allow users to "see" the EQ curve after the software has made it's corrections. Additionally, EMO-Q does not average its' results, so running it multiple times yeilds no functional benefit. The same holds true for Audyssey BTW. I understand your frustration and I hope that I can only ease some of the concern that EMO-Q is doing a proper job EQUALIZING the room. Even with the Audessy software, I had to go in and manually correct some speaker distances and crossover points. I also had to adjust channel trims slightly. Perhaps I just except this as part of setting up the system, or maybe I am just an Audio Geek . I truly hope that I can help, and my goal is to help ease people's concerns that software is at least handling the room correction properly. I am also in complete agreement that an 'end user' should not need an RTA to setup their Home Theater. However, at a minimum, a radio shack SPL meter and a good test disc, can bring a lot of satisfaction to setting up your rig. Actually, the funny thing is that if I didn't try to use one of my test discs and being lazy I just slapped it in the DVD player, I wouldn't have noticed the stereo anomaly a few of us are having. Every grey cloud has a silver lining. |
|
orange5814
Emo VIPs
Proud to be an Emotiva customer
Posts: 236
|
Post by orange5814 on Feb 16, 2010 0:20:46 GMT -5
I need to check on the stereo "digital glitch." I will test tomorrow with my Oppo and my CD player. I'll report back in the other thread.
|
|
- not necessary, but much appreciated.
Even though, the polarities are correct I switch them to satisfy the Emo-Q. With all that my final results are almost like zductive's. Crossover points are all over. Very disappointing. I have calibrated a Denon HT which uses Audyssey before. It is not that great either. But Emo-Q crossover points seems way off.
