Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Hardware › Receivers/Separates/Amps › How well do self calibration features work on mid-range receivers?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How well do self calibration features work on mid-range receivers?

post #1 of 19
11/20/09 at 5:24am
Thread Starter 
I'm again noodling a new receiver, and am considering something in the $600 - $800 range with a self-calibration feature e.g. Audyssey MultEQ. But how well do such features really work? If they're not actually particularly good, I'd do just as well buying a $300 receiver without the extra digital extras.

Any experiences, whether subjective or based on measurements?

Thanks!
Reply
post #2 of 19
11/20/09 at 6:30am
I only have experience with Audyssey, but it works very well.  I actually prefer my Audyssey settings to those taken with an SPL meter and VE (even though they are really close).  One thing Audyssey tends to do that I disagree with is setting speakers to "Large" when they really aren't.  But every receiver I've seen allows you to change the settings after Audyssey is run.
Reply
post #3 of 19
11/20/09 at 8:37am
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the personal experience. I was reading some discussion elsewhere about a double-blind survey on the subjective performance of high-end correction tools. The comments on the results, including Audyssey kit, were not particularly positive. But this was with a view towards "perfect" sound from high-end gear judged by trained listeners: nothing like watching a movie in my living room. So it's good to hear that, for the normal home use, these consumer-grade solutions can do a decent job.
Reply
post #4 of 19
11/20/09 at 10:30am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie View Post
One thing Audyssey tends to do that I disagree with is setting speakers to "Large" when they really aren't.  
 

This is not correct, although nearly everyone thinks that this statement is true.  Audyssey measures the frequency response of each channel and then reports the -3dB point of each to the AVR.  The AVR's firmware/software then takes that information and IT decides where to set the crossover frequencies.  Audyssey has nothing to do it.  As you say, many (nearly all) AVRs misapply the data provided by Audyssey and sets many speakers to "large" when they almost never should be.  Onkyo uses 80Hz as the deciding point on the "large vs. some specific frequency" when it sets the crossovers.  Obviously, no speaker should ever be set to large if its -3dB point is anywhere near 80Hz (more like 20Hz).  (Really, almost nobody should ever use large assuming that they have a subwoofer.)

OP, otherwise I agree that Audyssey is well worth the costs, especially the XT versions that have very high resolution for the LFE channel (where it is really needed).
Reply
post #5 of 19
11/20/09 at 1:35pm
Thread Starter 
Thanks. My price range would get me MultEQ, at best. But perhaps that is still worth the incremental cost.
Reply
post #6 of 19
11/20/09 at 2:23pm
So how should someone with a setup like what I have, run the mains?

Right now I have the mains Bi-Amped off of my Onk 806, mains are set to large and have entension down to 30hz solidly. I also have a sub. Should I run my mains as small and unhook the dual 10" subs in them? Considering they are down 3 at 30hz I don't see any reason not to run them as large?
Reply
post #7 of 19
11/20/09 at 2:38pm
Brett,  I am not sure what I would do in your situation.  I think that based on most things that I have read would say set your crossovers around the 40Hz range and let the sub handle the deep end.  However, maybe bi-amping can handle the load.  I have read that unless you have active crossovers in the speakers that bi-amping really does not do any good.  But, I have no experience, only reading too much.

My Beta 50s have dual 8" drivers and are rated down to 34Hz if I remember correctly, but I have no idea what happens to the response in my room.  I have tried various crossover frequencies and have decided (for now anyway) that 80Hz all the way around works best.  (BTW - - My sub is behind the main seating area.)  My previous post applies to 95%+ of the systems out there, but not many are bi-amped.

I guess it really comes down to what sounds best in your room. 
Edited by sptrout - 11/20/09 at 2:53pm
Reply
post #8 of 19
11/20/09 at 3:03pm
The Audyssey did a great job with my Onkyo 805, except as Jeff noted, it (or AVR) set the speakers to "Full Band Width" (large), which I changed. I double checked with my SPL meter, and Audyssey was so close, it wasn't worth messing with to change anything else. I am very happy with the settings Audyssey made, once I changed the "large" setting.
Reply
post #9 of 19
11/20/09 at 3:28pm
Steve,

No doubt it comes down to what sounds best. It seems to me that lots of people say Bi Amping has no effect but the results prove otherwise in my case. Take for example my last setup, I ran an Onkyo TX787 and if I ran my 9's with the shorting straps in, and ran a single amp channel to each main of the 787, it would go into thermal protect on dynamic material, the amp section could not deliver what the 9's required. I ultimately had to add in a M282 amp to drive the LF side of the 9's.

While the 9's did not send my 806 into thermal protect when running the shorting straps, there is a measurable increase on output when running them as large, bi amped. I've gotten into arguments before with those telling me Bi Amping means nothing, but logic states I am now using four channels and the internal networks are doing their job.  Rather than two channels to feed all of the drivers and letting the networks do their job. And as long as there aren't cascading issues with stacking active and passive crossovers, then there should be an advantage to Bi Amplification. But at the same time, most speakers are not made like my AR9's are and most are just "Bi Wire" which to me, is pointless.

When I run my receiver set to 6ohm, Fronts to large and Bi Amped, with sub, it does sound better. There is more output using this method and it does seem to "work" in my listening environment.

Dave,

Sorry if this was a bit of a threadjack. 
Reply
post #10 of 19
11/20/09 at 4:12pm
Brett,

I hope the OP does not mind us stealing his thread; I think we have answered his questions.

I have been interested in bi-amping because; 1) like your 806 my 805 can do it, 2) the Beta 50's can be bi-amped, and 3) my speakers for channels 6 & 7 are worthless so I would not miss them.  However, what little that I have read about bi-amping (mainly about the active crossover issue) has confused me enough not to try it.  Do you happen to know enough about the Beta 50s to comment on how effective it would be to bi-amp them?  If it is at least reasonable that they can be, it probably would be worth it to try it; it would just cost me a few feet of cable.

Sorry again Dave for us stealing your thread,
Steve
Reply
post #11 of 19
11/20/09 at 5:14pm
Steve,

I wish I could say I knew your Beta50's internally but I do not. I can only speak for how my AR9's networks, work and I don't think they are like a typical speaker network. I would even have to do a lot of digging on the net to give you the low down on the orders of my networks and the xo points. Suffice it to say that in my case, my sub woofers in my AR9's are on a completely separated network from the mids/highs.

In my case if I had a signal that was say 100hz and above, and I hooked it up to my LF side of my crossover, in an ideal world I would hear nothing from the sub, as that would be filtered out. In that scenario, Bi Amping would be useless. But if you are feeding two separate full range signals to two separate networks then they are going to benefit by receiving more power than if they were just drawing from one channel.

This is the part where there have been heated debates. If it's set to full, then both channels should be sending out a full range signal and the passive XO is doing it's job of filtering the signal. Now if the Receiver was somehow actively filtering the signal even when set to full range, then there would be cascading networks and that would cause issues.

Do you know if your LF drivers have their own dedicated xo networks?
Reply
post #12 of 19
11/20/09 at 5:22pm
Thread Starter 
(No worries Please continue )
Reply
post #13 of 19
11/21/09 at 9:37am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Brett DiMichele View Post
Do you know if your LF drivers have their own dedicated xo networks?
 

Thanks Brett for taking the time to write your thoughts and suggestions.

Trying to find detailed info on specific speaker xo's is nearly impossible.  I tried looking at what is in the Beta 50's Manual and at Infinty's web site (see below); not much help.  However, since there are four speaker binding posts it would seem like the LF drivers would have to have their own crossover (apparently 600Hz).

http://www.infinitysystems.com/home/products/product_detail.aspx?prod=BETA50BK&CheckProduct=Y&Language=ENG&Country=US&Region=USA

I have done a lot of research of past several hours and it seems that the majority opinion is that if you do not have an active external xo then bi-amping has no advantage.  Over at http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/index.php they have a lot to say about bi-amping mostly "forget it" unless you really know what you are doing and have the proper equipment.

I guess I will let it go unless you see something different based on what is available at Infinity's web site. 

Thanks again,
 

Steve

Reply
post #14 of 19
11/21/09 at 12:32pm
I have also read up on this a bit, including other HTF members comments, and it appears that bi-amping speakers using the otherwise un-used Back Surround channels of a 7.1 avr dosen't do much at all because all channels of an avr share the same power supply. For bi-amping to have any type of affect at all you need two seperate power supplies. I've also read that the cross-over in speakers somehow inhibit any advantage of bi-amping but the explanation pretty much went right over my head. I don't see the benefit of bi-wiring at all, under any circumstances.

Funny thing is, most speaker manufacturers recommend both bi-amping and bi-wiring   so who am I to disagree?

Just for fun I did try bi-amping my Swan Diva 5.1's (that's the actual model number, not the speaker arrangement) which are three way speakers with three pairs of binding posts (tri-wiring, anybody?   ) with the BS channels of my Pioneer 59txi and I didn't notice any difference in sound quality or volume. I left them wired that way for almost a month and tried everything I could think of (and the 59 has lots of things to try) including running MCACC and nothing changed so I put things back the way they were.

More than likely you need pretty high-end equipment, seperate stand-a-lone amplifiers (like M282's  ) and higher than normal volumes to make bi-amping worth-while.

But again, there have been people who bi-amp using an avr and are happy with the results so....
Reply
post #15 of 19
11/21/09 at 1:42pm
Dave --

To your original question I would say the the value of the auto-setup programs largely depends on your end goal.  My hypothesis is that the reason for the results of the double-blind studies you mention is that these setup programs are likely compromising slightly on the accuracy of a single sweet spot in favor of creating a larger "semi"-sweet spot.

So, if your goal is to optimize sound in your listening spot only, then you can probably do just as good as the setup program (maybe better).  If your goal is to optimize it for 2-6 listening positions then the setup programs are probably your best bet as they use some algorithms to determine the proper settings based on readings from several different locations.
Reply
post #16 of 19
11/21/09 at 3:10pm

From what I've read Audyssey's Dynamic Volume and Dynamic EQ (and possibly Dolby Volume) work very well. But these, as well as some form of room correction, are available on even $300 avr's these days. Things that are missing from some entry level receivers are video up-conversion, fewer inputs, multi-zone capability, internet connectivity and audio via hdmi. Many are "pass-thru" only. And of course, less powerful amp section.

Reply
post #17 of 19
11/21/09 at 6:58pm
Thread Starter 
My goal is to push a button and have my movies sound better :)

The $400 receiver has all the features I need. The $600 receiver has a skosh more power and a more sophisticated sound optimizer. If these sound optimizers were no good, I'd buy the cheap one and never touch its optimizer. But if they are pretty decent, I'll buy the higher-priced one for its slightly better performance.
Reply
post #18 of 19
11/22/09 at 1:51pm
Gene,

I've read all the mantra from the Bi Amping Naysayers and I can't say I agree. My ear hears differently between BiAmp and non BiAmp. And the naysayers say "Well if it's not active it does nothing, and you are sharing the same power supply yadda yadda " But what they fail to state is that any amp manufactured has to adhere to guide lines of what power output it can do, with all channels driven. Logic dictates that if an amp can do 130WPC x 2 Channels and can carry 100WPC all channels driven, then you are gaining 70WPC by Bi Amping. Yes speakers are a resistive load and what they need power wise is completely dependent on the dynamics involved. And therein lies my issue, with just two channels driving my mains, those two channels have to drive four 5.25" midranges, two 1" tweeters and 2 10" bass reflex subs.  What's the most resistive part of that load? The subs! And suprise, when I biamp them, they output more bass.  Not that the bass overshadows the mids, but it becomes in balance.

When driving each cabinet off one amp channel the music sounds thin, tons of mind range punch but no bottom end.

*shrugs*

I guess I must be crazy since all the experts say it makes no difference! I dunno!

Back to the topic at hand.

I am absolutely thrilled with the Audessey sound processing. It took much longer to get similar results with an SPL meter and test tones than it does to run the multipoint room setup.


Reply
post #19 of 19
11/22/09 at 4:21pm

Quote:
And suprise, when I biamp them, they output more bass.  Not that the bass overshadows the mids, but it becomes in balance.
 

Well, when I did my trial bi-amping I was using a sub so added bass may not have been noticed. But hey, if it works for you then that's great, regardless of what some knucklehead on the internet thinks  !
 
As for the newer versions of Audyssey, I rarely hear a bad word about them except the afore-mentioned in-correct Large speaker settings, and a weak subwoofer output which both can easily be corrected manually, but I've never had any luck with any of these auto eq things including H/K's EZ/SetEQ, an older version of Audyssey and the MCACC on my current but "mature" 59TXi. It's not the setup that's an issue, it's the eq. I've always thought the problem was with the user (me,  ) and not the auto eq  .

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers/Separates/Amps
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Hardware › Receivers/Separates/Amps › How well do self calibration features work on mid-range receivers?