23 of my Bryston SP4 review, "Dirac Live Auto-Target Fit." See text for methods. Measured Inverse Curve" See text for methods. 22 of my Denon X4100 review, "Audyssey Reference Displayed vs. I did a 6 point measurement with REW at positions within the 9 point setup pattern Audyssey was setup using the same measurement points with the Audyssey mic (there will be variation in exact mic positioning though). "Dirac Live was calibrated with a UMIK-1 using the tight focusing (9 point) mic pattern the "measurement cube" length was around 2 ft.To elaborate, here's some data showing RC predicted-vs-actual comparisons done properly: That way you can test both whether a RC system (a) offers a reasonable prediction of its end result and (b) results that are stable over an area. Instead, the proper approach is to sample random points in the same area covered by the calibration points. There is no need to try to place the microphone at the same points used in calibration in order to confirm a room correction system's predicted results with an independent measurement system such as REW or FuzzMeasure. when using REW to find out how well each performs in terms of actual results (averaged) versus the corresponding target curves."
"he suggested using the same 8 points ref. added) To clarify, this is " responding to the checking of the "after" graph that Audyssey displays in the software." Hence, the disclaimer on the correct procedure."Ĭ ( quoted, emph. People usually don't, then complain that Audyssey is "making things up". THAT is when you have to use the exact same measurement points. "Often people want to compare their results to the Audyssey predicted response. So, here's your opportunity to do so: please explain to the group the relevant and material distinctions you see between the following statements: I note your hand-waving is not accompanied by any actual explanation of said alleged differences in scope. You two may think that, but the actual text on the screen says otherwise. Or just put them side by side if you have a stand that can do that. I don't think the Audyssey uses a weird pinout, so you should be able to plug it right into any computer or USB sound card mic in that accepts a standard 1/8" TS plug. IF you have interest (regardless of the defect, you seem to be satisfied with the sound you’re getting, so I’d understand a lack of interest) one quickish way to see where Audyssey is defective is a rough microphone comparison: same speaker, swap mics keeping the capsule at same height, distance, and orientation. It could be as simple as someone baking the wrong cal file into the program. That's in essence, "eff the target curve you assign me, I'll do whatever the hell I want." Have you reported this bug to Audyssey? I would start there. And it is an arguably disqualifying defect: you said zig (lower the HF) and Audyssey decided to zag (boost the HF). I was hoping for a simple and easily correctable user error, rather than a defective room correction system. Sweepable and adjustable Q: makes so much more sense than a geq (scalpel vs hatchet.Well that sucks.
At best it’ll mean no change, because the subs will be protected from such freqs, but if there’s no protection (no speaker management, amps with no DSP, passive subs) you could end up distorting the low end, or even breaking something.Īnd peq in stead of geq all the way. If you’re analyzing 20Hz-20kHz and your algorithm decides there’s not enough 20-35Hz it’ll boost that range, which the subs aren’t designed for. A lot of the subs I’ve seen, even something as big as dual 18s, generally only have decent frequency response down to 30-35Hz. Also, if it did do a long analysis and found hole at 100Hz, how would the system know if that hole is there because of speakers’ frequency response curve, and therefore it should boost, or if that hole is there because of a room cancellation issue, and so boosting +15dB won’t do anything, in fact it could damage the speaker? It could also be there because of an XO issue. If you measure in the wrong spot, the auto-eq algorithm could decide to add +15dB to the top end, and that could be bad for the tweeters and bad for people who are actually in the tweeters’ coverage. Also (and unless you’re using a decent array,) most point-source systems don’t have a very wide field of HF coverage. IME these days newer speakers (especially active ones) are reasonably flat, it’s more the room issues you have to watch out for, as as Andreas pointed out, the response measured will change around the room. Analyzing a short burst might help flatten the speakers, but unless there’s a longer analysis there won’t be time to analyze room acoustics.
0 kommentar(er)
