Alignment of speaker setup in living room

[Matthias182]

I started now again from zero. I did measure the subs and aligned them using the MiniDSP. Then I applied some EQ to the subs.

Afterwards I did align the subs with the fronts using the alignment tool. I did work with a crossover of 120Hz as that seemed to give me the best results.

Then I did the time alignment of the remaining speakers using FL as a reference.

Would like to know, if I can now go any further with this. It sounds reasonable to me, but maybe there is room.

 

[jtalden]

I am not surprised. Does your version of Audyssey allow editing the target curve? An average of measurements around the LP normally should approach a smoothly falling SPL target of some shape. This result suggests there is too much high frequency energy in the 4-15 kHz range. The sags in the low frequency and 800 Hz ranges don't help either.

 

[jtalden]

I started now again from zero. I did measure the subs and aligned them using the MiniDSP. Then I applied some EQ to the subs.

Afterwards I did align the subs with the fronts using the alignment tool. I did work with a crossover of 120Hz as that seemed to give me the best results.

Then I did the time alignment of the remaining speakers using FL as a reference.

Would like to know, if I can now go any further with this. It sounds reasonable to me, but maybe there is room.

The best timing I found for the FL and FR is -11 ms for the SWs with the SWs inverted per the chart below.

Below, New predicted responses look a better in the high frequency:

The timing of all 5 main speakers is good.

 

[Matthias182]

I am not sure with the house curve. I do have the Audyssey app, but there it is rather difficult to get a good curve set up wth the finger on the tablet.

I did try to run Audyssey again. Still puzzles me that I finds 40Hz as the best crossover. I did also do some more measurements with different crossover settings. I somehow feel that 120Hz ist the best in my room. Would you mind to have another look?

 

[jtalden]

I don't need to look again. I agree with your position. I would have selected a 120 Hz XO. I also agree that your settings of Post-26 look better than what Audyssey originally did. Possibly the Audyssey mic response is very different from yours? Your listening evaluation suggests Audyssey is not going to be helpful unless an adjusted target can be applied. You probably can do better with manual adjustments if you have that option.

 

[sm52]

I also looked at your measurements. My opinion - a 40 Hz subwoofer is the worst solution. Then 120, then 80. That is, there is no ideal solution, but I would try to play with the crossover point from 60 Hz to 100 Hz.

 

[Matthias182]

I did start again from zero without using Audyssey. I tried different XO settings, but still I think that 120 gives me the least amount of dips bet ween 100 and 200 Hz.

Can you take a look at the results and let me know, if there is something I could still improve.

 

[sm52]

It seems to me that you did a good job of gluing L + R + SW.
It seems strange to me that in the name of the graph 120 Hz for SW, but in reality the graph starts to fall from 80 Hz. It's the same with the previous graphs. The real fall of the SW chart starts earlier.
You can try to move the L and R speakers in the room, maybe the holes up to 200 Hz will become smaller.

 

[jtalden]

Did you intended to set the timing back to the setting recommended in post-28? If so, this new data does not show that.

From this new data the SW need its delay reduced by 7.5 ms. This will achieve the same recommended setting as Post-28.
Below is the AT analysis on this new data and the SPL comparison of the current timing (0) vs the -7.5 ms change in timing (-7.5).
Again, the timing of all 5 mains is good as is no change is needed to them.

 

[Matthias182]

I cannot say why the graph of the SW has this shape, but I did check again and the setting is definitely 120Hz. Also I moved around the speakers a bit, but with the given space and shape of the room, there is little I can do. There was one position that helped a bit. O moved the speakers completely back to the wall, just a few centimeters away and then also further away from each other. This gave me a flatter response but the imaging was compeltely destroyed, so I moved them back.

I did not try to replicate any from the previous attempts, but just started from scratch and aligned everything based on the new measurements. It must be coincidence if it looks similar. With regard to the recommended delay, I would like to use the AVR to achieve this, but I struggle what to change best, because all speakers seem to be aligned, as you said. The distances in the avr are as follows:

FL: 5,0m
FR: 5,0m
CC: 4,91m
SW: 3,0m
SL: 3,77m
SR: 3,9m

Is it enough to reduce the distance of the SW here or do I need to increase the distance of all others speakers.

 

[jtalden]

The blue SPL trace is the result of the current timing between the SW and mains not being favorable. The red trace shows the SPL response that will occur after the timing adjustment is made.

To implement the timing adjustment, choose 1 of these 3 options:

1. Reduce the SW delay in the DSP by 7.5ms (you probably don't have large enough delay setting in it now to do that)
2. Increase the SW distance in the AVR by 2.6 m.
3. Reduce all 5 mains distances by 2.6 m.