Auto calibration

[browndk26]

How much better will your system sound with an auto calibration program in the AVR. I was looking at the Onkyo HT5300 but I noticed it has Audyssey EQ only. My current AVR has no auto calibration. I used a tape measure for speaker distance and an SPL meter for the speaker levels. Surprisingly they were all close to 75db at 0 for the speaker levels. Thinking of a budget of $500 if we buy an HTIB for the Plasma TV.

My other options would be to (1) buy a higher model refurb Onkyo HTIB or (2) buy a new AVR and new sub and use my current energy speakers with them. Any suggestions for the new AVR and Sub?

[LordoftheRings]

I use Audyssey MultEQ XT personally and it does great things to my two subs.

[browndk26]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

I use Audyssey MultEQ XT personally and it does great things to my two subs.

This is what the HT5300 has "Audyssey EQ - no mic".

I think this is different from what you use.

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by browndk26

How much better will your system sound with an auto calibration program in the AVR. I was looking at the Onkyo HT5300 but I noticed it has Audyssey EQ only. My current AVR has no auto calibration. I used a tape measure for speaker distance and an SPL meter for the speaker levels. Surprisingly they were all close to 75db at 0 for the speaker levels. Thinking of a budget of $500 if we buy an HTIB for the Plasma TV.

My other options would be to (1) buy a higher model refurb Onkyo HTIB or (2) buy a new AVR and new sub and use my current energy speakers with them. Any suggestions for the new AVR and Sub?

I think a new receiver would be the thing to do . Then the sub when you can . There is nothing wrong with the energy speakers .

Having the SPL meter is a good thing . You run the Audyssey & then adjust the speakers with the meter to get the same level from each one .

Just my 2 cents !

[Beaner666]

Originally Posted by browndk26

I used a tape measure for speaker distance and an SPL meter for the speaker levels.

To me that works better than Audyssey. I have an Onkyo 606 and it has Audyssey calibration built in so I originally used that but I hated the way it sounded. Music and effects were too loud and dialogue was buried and overall everything sounded "boxy" and "hollow."

I was totally unhappy with the way it sounded and just went the tape measure SPL meter route and that sounded much better.

[dg5150]

My receiver has MCACC - I can tell a big difference after I calibrated. Hard to describe how it sounds - I guess spacious would be a good word.

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by dg5150

My receiver has MCACC - I can tell a big difference after I calibrated. Hard to describe how it sounds - I guess spacious would be a good word.

My Elite has it as well & it is a good thing to have & use .

[Miller Lite1]

my yamaha seems to do a good job sometimes I do turn up the center though

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by browndk26

This is what the HT5300 has "Audyssey EQ - no mic".

I think this is different from what you use.

But there are various flavors of Audyssey, just go to Audyssey own web site to find more about. The two top ones are Audyssey MultEQ Pro (up to 32 mike's positions), and MultEQ XT (8 mike's positions). Then MultEQ (6 positions), and then 3 positions...
The more positions, the better the average, and the higher the flavor the more filters and better definition overall, in particular in the lower audio frequencies.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by dg5150

My receiver has MCACC - I can tell a big difference after I calibrated. Hard to describe how it sounds - I guess spacious would be a good word.

The Advanced MCACC from Pioneer receivers can also yield excellent results, and it has some very cool features too; as a Phase adjust, nice graphs, and you can tweak to your heart content and even save various audio curves in memory for different positions.

There is also TRINNOV, but it is exclusive of only the Sherwood Newcastle 972 receiver, for now.

Yamaha YPAO is also a good one based on a Parametric EQ.

...And then there is ARC (from Anthem), but we are in another league here. And there are others too, from high end companies.
The future will be very interesting as all of these Auto Room EQs keep getting better and better.

[Big Daddy]

An SPL meter can only measure the the speakers' levels. An auto calibration program does many things, including equalization of the frequency response of the speakers/subwoofer. Room treatment can help, but equalization is a must in all HT rooms.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy

An SPL meter can only measure the the speakers' levels. An auto calibration program does many things, including equalization of the frequency response of the speakers/subwoofer. Room treatment can help, but equalization is a must in all HT rooms.

Thanks, exactly!

And a tape measure help to verify if the distances between you and your speakers are accurate.
But you have to go from the voice coil of the midrange or the tweeter to the globe of your left or right ear.
And the subwoofer is totally another matter as the phase of the x-over from it, in an Auto Room EQ, will generally have a greater distance than it actually is. But with many Room EQs now, this is taken into consideration (like Audyssey for example), so you don't change the value, even if you don't agree.

Thanks for stopping by and offering a small important token about the rat shack level meter.

[rpatt]

Why do you need to measure the speaker distances if you're using an SPL meter to set the levels? Isn't that redundant?

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by rpatt

Why do you need to measure the speaker distances if you're using an SPL meter to set the levels? Isn't that redundant?

I am with you on that .

I can understand using a tape measure when you are setting up your front L / R to get A triangle from your listening position , Which is what you want for HT . But after that why would you even need to use a tape measure is beyond me .

[jomari]

Originally Posted by rpatt

Why do you need to measure the speaker distances if you're using an SPL meter to set the levels? Isn't that redundant?

speaker levels (or volume), is a different variable compared to speaker distance.

speaker distance measures how far the sound would reach you, and if at the exact same point the other speakers would at the same time. if your rear speakers distance is rated at a longer distance you wouldnt be receiving the same sound compared to that from the fronts. its not as accurate as you'd want it to be.

at times, some rooms need the speaker distance to be indifferent due to the room interaction with them. considering a wall on the left side of the room, to be a reflective point, you can adjust the distance to accomodate the reflections. better yet use some acoustic panels to avoid the first reflection.

heres a question for you folks, how can you measure the distance from one speaker to the listening point using the spl meter?

the spl meter calibrates (and im saying this in a very general sense) how loud the signal gets to you. is it in coersion with the other speakers? now that you've addressed the time the signal gets to you (via the distance), you want to accomodate how loud it is in relation to the other speakers.

ive posted my thoughts on MCACC, Audyssey etc, on one of my favorite postings... here. but i also consider that the normal user/listener doesnt have the time, nor the will to learn more about the said topic.

Heres the posting...

MCACC settings (and its counterparts like audyssey), are essentially built in tools used for the common clientele to calibrate their systems, including speaker distance, equalization (at times), and other parameters tailored towards your listening area, resulting in a good fine tuned environment.

quick reference towards what MCACC does...

pioneer link

IDEALLY.

its a great way to start figuring out the relations of your speakers and the acoustic environment you currently have. sure its not up to par to a calibration done by a professional, nor would it determine everything up to a precision, but its a start.

it does tho, most of the time, has a hard tiime evaluating the speakers size, and since subs produce a non-localized point, its difficult for it to determine where it is. remember: this is a tool used primarily for ROOM EQUALIZATION and not SPEAKER SETUPS. this is only an add on.

better results can be had tho using a SPL meter and a quick learning of how to use em properly.

the best results would be using an True RTA program paired with a good calibration microphone.

As stated by a very good colleague of mine, these 'built in' gizmos and products are simple add ons by these manufacturers to solve all problems, both realistic and well, relative. The most important aspects of it boil down to getting the basics done right. Acoustic treatments, placements, etc.

in a comparative example would be that of weight loss programs - these are the 'miracle diet pills' that are included, when all you need is a good diet and exercise.

Big daddy has also posted an excellent point here, in regards to equalization. ive rarely touched that topic due to the number of other factors ive brought to the table (plus might coerce crazyblu to do something drastic again. ), but it does a fairly good job for what they are. Id rather invest in acoustics firsthand, instead of tackling equalization as a quick resolution.

For example, if we have too many reflections in a room, better to take care of that first, instead of trying to use an equalizer to get almost the same, and quite frankly, better results.

Think of it this way, if you're home theater room was made of glass (like a couple i see here with a gazillion posters as reflective points... ), equalization can address to a certain extent these challenges, but can not be beat by physically addressing it via panels, bass traps, et al.

[Big Daddy]

Jomari beat me to it, but I will post it anyway.

Although the SPL meter measures the loudness of each speaker and makes sure that they have equal levels, there is no guarantee that sound from each speaker will get to the listening position at the same time. You can argue that measuring the distances is important to add time delays in milliseconds to account for the relatively slow speed of sound.

Bonus Material (definitely will be on the test)
The speed of sound in dry air is approximately 344 meters/second, 1127 feet/second, or 770 miles per hour, or one mile in 5 seconds at room temperature of 20°C (68°F) and sea level. Sound travels faster in liquids and non-porous solids than it does in air, traveling about 4.4 times faster in water than in air. The speed of sound in air varies with the temperature and humidity such that sound travels slower on cold days, but is nearly independent of pressure or density. The speed of sound is dependent on air (or any other gas) and is not dependent on the amplitude, frequency, or wavelength. The relationship between speed, wavelength, and frequency is:

Speed = Wavelength . Frequency

[jomari]

im still the other guy.

oh, Big daddy has also brought up another can of worms to the party.

Delay.

[rpatt]

I can see that if you had big differences in speaker distance that some delay in the near ones would help. Thanks guys.

[jomari]

Originally Posted by rpatt

I can see that if you had big differences in speaker distance that some delay in the near ones would help. Thanks guys.

in a nutshell, its a great way to address such challenges.

its not just a matter of how 'loud' a signal is received, but also when the signal gets from point a to b. both, in my opinion, equally important.

[LordoftheRings]

Wow! All of that because of a simple "tape measure"!