Discussion of EMO-Q - Unusable as is

[SticknStones]

Feb 15, 2010 23:45:03 GMT -5 orange5814 said:

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.

Hi Scott,

Your explanations were very clear to me and thank you for taking the time to share your background and test scenarios. I look forward to reading about your conclusions. I have a much older Denon before room corrections came out and have not done anything with my room. I am waiting on the XMC and hope the EMO-Q manual settings are still intact as I too like the idea of learning the proper use and the opportunity to do the tweaking.

Thanks for your posts and I look forward to the next edition!

[ksuvet]

My UMC arrived today, and here are my results so far with EmoQ, XPA-5, and Swan Diva 6.1, C3, and R3, and DIY SW. I've run it 3 times so far. Unlike many users, I'm at least finding the results to be fairly consistent. All runs were with the mic perched atop a tripod, and I went in another room. I'm glad I read ahead of time about how loud the tones were and that I didn't try it at pre-update levels!

1. The distances are almost right on, with one weird exception. On the "done" screen it give the SW distance as 2 ft., which would mean it was sitting at the same spot as the right surround. However, once the settings are accepted and rechecked in the setup menu, the distance is given as 8ft, which is correct.

2. Phase has always been ok for all speakers on all runs. Crossover setting for the L, R, and C are given as 250hz and surrounds at 130hz. Manufacturer freq. response specs are listed as L&R=35hz, C=55hz, and Surround=60hz, so I made some changes to that.

3. Levels have been a bit weird. I had at least one run that almost everything was set as a +, which doesn't really make sense to me. Why raise one channel 1db and another 4db if you could just increase the 2nd by 3db? Unfortunately, I only wrote down the results from the last run to compare to SPL. L&R were good. The center was set way too high (+6db vs. -0.5 with SPL meter). L surround was close but R surround was set at 6db vs -5 with SPL meter. This was surprising since R surround is only 2-3 ft from the mic position, i.e much closer than L surround. SW was 2db difference. All speaker results showed similar results with SPL meter and UMC test tones vs Avia DVD test tones except SW. In this case it was a tremedous difference (8db UMC vs -2db Avia), and I'm not sure which to believe. Full disclosure: SPL meter readings were taken hand held while sitting on the ground, facing the couch and holding the meter upward. I couldn't find the tripod I normally use for this, so the results may not be as accurate.

3. Like many have reported, I get the mysterious, phantom back R surround result on the EQ when no speaker exists there. For now, I'm assuming its some kind of label or data shift error and have converted those results to the L surround. I'm not sure what else to do about that. EQ results from each run were fairly consistent. I found no instance where something was + on one run and - on another, and most bands that differed were within 1 db. I'm an EQ n00b, but most of what I've seen previously warns against sinking too much amp power into boost, and instead to concentrate on the cuts. I'm not sure what constitutes too much, though. What's everyone doing with the + bands? Keep, lower back to 0, or somewhere in between? Also every SW band from 22 to 55hz had a cut from -2 to -4db. I find that hard to believe.

[mick16]

I received my UMC-1 on Monday and ran the EmoQ last night...

Similar issues.

#1. Said my rear speakers were out of phase, but I'm 100% positive that's not the case.

#1. 250hz crossover for my full range fronts. The center and surrounds came in at 100hz and 120hz which is still higher than what I would have expected based on the speaker size and specs (I expected at most 80hz and 100hz).

#2. Phantom back R surround as well. Didn't have any frequency adjustment for my Left Surround either. So now I'm not sure if the figures for the back R Surround should go into the Left Surround or not.

I need check levels with the SPL meter tonight to see how those shape up.

At this point, its fun to play with, but its not ready for prime time.

[zductive]

I am beginning to believe that the equalization curves are about right. I manually calibrated my front L & R speakers and then ran EMO-Q. The curves were close enough to believe that they may be correct.

General recommendation for something to try :
After running EMO-Q, run speaker level equalization with a SPL meter.
Set the crossover points to 80 Hz on all speakers.
This sounds pretty good to me.

Have you noticed that the SPL bounces around by several dB when running the subwoofer level set. During emo-q, the subwoofer tone doesn't start until after several seconds. Maybe that has to do with the funny sw settings.

[satman24122]

Has anyone tried using a microphone from another receiver to if they get the same results? I have Denon that has a microphone but do not have a UMC-1 yet so do not know if it would fit the UMC-1.

I have a LPA-1 amp and I just love the sound and power it provided.

[hemster]

Feb 20, 2010 23:04:18 GMT -5 satman24122 said:

Has anyone tried using a microphone from another receiver to if they get the same results? I have Denon that has a microphone but do not have a UMC-1 yet so do not know if it would fit the UMC-1.

I have a LPA-1 amp and I just love the sound and power it provided.

I don't think using a different mic is advisable or recommended. The EMO-Q software likely depends on using the provided mic. I'm 99% sure I've read that somewhere. I'm 100% sure that someone will chime in and correct me if I'm wrong however! ;D

[Nemesis.ie]

The included mic should be calibrated to suit Emo-Q for sure.

That's not to say it is not worth trying another one and see if you liked the results, experimenting and personal taste are large factors in this "hobby".

[shinsho]

I took delivery of my UMC-1 last Thursday... and as promised I made sure to compare the Audessey against Emo-Q before packing up my Marantz for its new home.

First let me say that I am of the mind that auto room EQ programs are not the be all end all of good sound in the theater room. I believe that things like speaker placement and acoustical treatments play a much greater role in the sound of your gear than a few tweaks on a Ge or Pe. That being said if you have the use of a good room eq then it can help with that last little bit to make a room go from good to Great.
This is the reason that I was intrigued by Emo-Q... to have a room Eq system that allows total control and tweaking by the end user is something that most A/V geeks would kill for.

Now before I unhooked my Marantz, I re-ran Audessey so I could do a back to back comparison without moving the mic stand between measurements. I simply ran the Marantz... disconnected everything, then replaced it with the UMC-1. After about 10 minutes of setting up the inputs the way I wanted them, I ran Emo-Q. The mic position for both runs was on a tripod placed in the center seating position , slightly elevated above the back of the chair.

First up... Speaker check, distance and phase


Emo-Q


Next crossover freq. and trim levels


unfortunately the Audessey implementation in my Marantz doesn't show me individual crossover settings , only whether the speakers are small or large


Emo-Q


Comparing the way the two programs set up my speakers, I can see they both got some things wrong.
Audessey
1. reported the phase wrong on the front 3 speakers
2. set all speakers to large except the surrounds. ( my fronts measure to about 50hz , center 70hz , sides 70hz and backs 90hz in room using REW)
3.HP / LP filer for sub set at 180hz

Emo-Q
1.set center and sides to 250hz (see above)
2. set sub woofer x-over at 175hz
3. set center channel and sub way hot.

After some manual tweaking of Emo-Q to get it to sound right to "Me" .... I took an FR measurement using REW to compare it to the one I took of Audessey before the removal of the Marantz.
Audessey=green Emo-Q=blue of course
1/3rd smoothing applied


comparing the graphs ... the Emo-Q appears to be smoother overall, except for the dip at 40 and 55hz I was unable to fix due to the non working sub eq filters in the UMC-1. Also the dips at 130 and 250hz have me a little perplexed as these do not appear to be room modes.

So overall , I am happy with Emo-Q. At least in the ability it gives me to correct what the auto program can't. Once the non working sub eq is fixed... the UMC-1 should be a no brainer for those that want total control over their system.

[Delaney]

That's a very interesting test Shinsho. Nice work. I'm waiting for the subEQ fix as well. Then the UMC-1 will be a killer

[jmilton]

Thanks for sharing that information with the family...that was interesting.

[ripcordaff]

This is interesting...certainly gives more confidence i the EMO-Q system...

[bootman]

Feb 25, 2010 10:46:55 GMT -5 ripcordaff said:

This is interesting...certainly gives more confidence i the EMO-Q system...

+1.

That is a nice curve and restores confidence in the potential of this unit.

We need more examples (good and bad) just like that one.

[mcg]

Wow....EmoQ really is a dog's breakfast.

My mic is on a tripod, placed perfectly in the middle of my room. It is just above head height behind the first row of seats, which I though a good compromise between the front row and back row. Straight line of sight to all but my rear speakers in the 7.1 setup.

[shinsho]

Feb 25, 2010 23:43:37 GMT -5 mcg said:

Wow....EmoQ really is a dog's breakfast.

My mic is on a tripod, placed perfectly in the middle of my room. It is just above head height behind the first row of seats, which I though a good compromise between the front row and back row. Straight line of sight to all but my rear speakers in the 7.1 setup.

At what volume level did you set the UMC-1 prior to running Emo-Q, and what are the dimensions of your room?

[mcg]

Is the volume not automatically controlled by the Emo?

My room is about 15x26 or so.

Dedicated theater, with professionally designed room treatments.

[shinsho]

I don't think the volume is set by emo-q.... I found the volume that equaled 75db in the speaker level settings of the UMC-1 and set it to that prior to running Emo-Q.

The reason I asked about the dimensions is that dead center of the room is usually the worst place to take any RTA measurements.... it normally is the place most effected by room modes. You said you have two rows of theater seats. I would try placing the mic in the row farthest back (or closer to 1/3 room length) and make sure the mic is elevated slightly above the backs of the chairs to avoid the reflections from them.

[mcg]

I'll try that, thanks.