MSO Results Comparison
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 тра 2022
- This is a follow up to the MSO v1.1.6 Update video.
I'll walk through several iterations of optimization that I've used. I'll show you why a flat frequency response doesn't mean things will sound good. We'll also dip our toe into the spectrogram graph to compare ringing between configs along with a bit of a discussion on peak energy time and group delay.
I'm pretty impressed with the improvements I've been able to make in the low end of my system. It sounded good, but there was always something a bit off. Thanks to an MSO optimization, I've been able to figure out what it was, but only MSO had fixed it!
I know your video has gotten long in the tooth, but I wanted to let you know that I still had the basics from these videos to do my sub PEQs. MINIDSP, REW and MSO have changed so much, that I just took the defaults on things that weren't covered. BTW, my system has never sounded so good, thank you! You have thousands waiting on update videos!
Thank you, and I appreciate the kind words! Life has just gotten in the way of content creation for me. I have more that I want to do, updates for new versions of software and show some other tips and tricks. I've just been buried on a few fronts. I haven't forgotten, I just need things to calm down to free up time.
Mate…would be great to see some more content from you. So many sources out there for REW, MSO, WTF and this is the most cogent among them. What I established as my reference source.
Been a year, interested in the latest best practices with the latest software. And would be outstanding if you covered your end-to-end Dirac process (assuming you still use) including measurement positions.
I appreciate the kinds words! I'd like to do an update with all the changes in MSO. I didn't have enough subs for a long time (went from 4 x 15" to 2 x 18" and now am back to 4 x 18"), and now things are just crazy busy. I have my fingers crossed to do something next month, but life has a way of interfering.
Love this video! Lowering group delay and resonance in waterfall is a great topic
Great comparison. I still feel like I am hanging on by a thread with all this but the more I hear the lexicon and look at the graphs the better I understand it. Thanks for relating the waterfall graph and the other graph... Makes so much more sense.
Thank you for all your great videos sir! Much appreciated. I love that you always explain WHY you do things, instead of just telling "you should do this and do that" in order to make it work.
Thank you for the kind words! I know some of these are long and it drives people nuts. I just made what I'd have wanted when learning MSO. I like to understand the "why" as much as I can. I still have a LOT to learn though 😀
Thanks Jeff! I always learn something with your videos. My project is slowly progressing...Atmos speakers installed yesterday. I'd like to give you a shout when my subs are in. Also, nice to put a face to a voice. Well done!
Nice! I was looking at some old comments when waiting for these to upload and wondered how your stuff was going. Happy to help out and pass along my own lessons learned. Definitely give me a shout when you're ready to dig in.
@@jeffmery Hi Jeff. My media room now has the 2 channel going, I have my Lyngdorf processor and a Roon Nucleus to play my CD flac files and stream from Qobuz, and I'm happy to say that it is glorious, even better than I expected. I just ordered my 4 SVS subs and they are in Miami waiting to be shipped here. I plan to start trying to get them calibrated with MSO as soon as they arrive....maybe 3-4 weeks. This may be totally inappropriate, but I would like to be able to contact you more directly, if possible. I anticipate a snag or several being new to the sub optimization game. If that is something that is doable, I do have a FaceBook profile under my name. If you were to send a friend request I could accept and enable us to chat. If that is not something that you are interested in, I understand. I plan to go through all of your videos in detail again before I even get the subs here. All the best!
@@jlbfoot I'm not on FB very much at all (usually only to sell something). Send me an e-mail to jeff at bisonhta dot com.
Hi Jeff! Looking forward to watching this when I get a chance. I hope all is well. 👍🏾
Good to hear from you, and likewise!
Thanks for the video. Very informative.
Great work! Thanks
Very interesting. I will have to watch this a couple times to understand it all. Thanks. I’m assuming you need a minidsp to do this type of adjustments on your subs.
You can use any DSP to implement the changes. MSO just provides an automated export in the required format for the most common miniDSP devices. Plenty of folks are using the DSP built into their external amps, within their processor (Trinnov, StormAudio, etc.), or other external DSPs.
The only thing to consider is to ensure the PEQ parameter limits used in the optimization match the capabilities of the target DSP. They all have slightly different limits on gain, delay, number of available PEQ filters, etc. The most important is to know the type of PEQ implemented. It will either be classic or RBJ. RBJ is more definitely more common, but it's best to verify. If the wrong PEQ definition is used, the results won't match the prediction when implemented. You're not going to damage anything, it's just the results not matching.
Implementation on a non miniDSP device will require manual entry of all of the PEQ parameters. There is an "abbreviated" filter report that's easier to read when manual entry is required.
Hi Jeff, Great videos, thanks for spending the time to make them. My system is mains and two subs. You said to hit you with questions so here goes:
1) How do you choose the best HPF/LPF slopes?
2) Within boundaries you set, do you let MSO choose the best HP/LPF frequency points?
3) At each measurement location, MSO assumes the bass is being generated by (in my case) four sources, L, R, S1 and S2 and creates a group containing all four. But Dirac only corrects for three sources at a time: L+S1+S2 and R+S1+S2. So at each location, since MSO allows you to add/create groups, would it not be better to have three per location? I.e. at location X have group 1: L+S1+S2 and group 2: R+S1+S2 and group 3: L+R+S1+S2? MSO has an option to allow different SPLs as obviously group 1 and 2 will be quieter than 3 so that could be enabled.
Thanks
Sorry for the delay; day job had me on the road.
Are you doing a 2-channel setup or a home theater setup? Sorry for the dumb question but "mains" is an overloaded term and folks could mean an L and R speaker only or all of their non-sub speakers.
In the meantime, there's a great thread/response over on AVS Forum regarding grouping for optimizing 2-channel setups. I'll see if I can find the conversation and post the link.
Found it: www.avsforum.com/threads/another-mso-rew-success-story-with-no-sub-crossovers.3246276/#post-61732203
That guy did some *really* cool stuff!
Will keep an eye out for the answer to my question above.
@@jeffmery hi, no problem at all. Thanks for coming back to me. Yes it's a 2 channel system with a Stereo pair of mains and two subs running mono. All coming off minidsp, 2 channel dirac enabled hardware.
Appreciate the link. I'll take a look.
This is a very cool comparison. I've many times seen the recommendation to not use high Q filters as well as the fewest number of filters possible, but haven't really bothered messing with it much, though I think I've noticed more filters having more of an "artificial" sound. That said, it seems like it would be hard to filter all the way up to ~200hz without using most or all of the 10 basic filters available on the 2x4HD, regardless of Q size. Most of the EQ videos you see have an EQ-ing range stopping around 105-120 hz, so I suppose it would be easier if you do that, but then you lose the benefits of EQing well past the crossover as you show.
I think most of those video stop there because you just can't EQ a larger range without higher filter counts when using more narrow filters. In my own experience, I could really never get a good response above *maybe* 150 Hz. Then there's the downside you mention above on how it actually sounds. This was the first time I had experimented in my own room and I agree that the comparison was pretty cool and insightful.
I helped a buddy with his system yesterday down in Houston. He had a GREAT response at the MLP using REW, but things were pretty choppy above 100 Hz. He crosses all speakers at either 100 or 110 Hz so things were definitely impacted. Getting him flat to 200 Hz and getting his SPL levels in line between the subs and bed layer had some major improvements.
I don't want to give the impression that this is "the only way". But I do think it is "something everyone should try" to see if they get improvement.
Thank you for your explanation about group delay and the spectrogram. I just took a look at my spectrogram and I wish I could get even close to what you have. I have pretty good group delay but it looks like there is a lot of energy hanging on for a long time in my room. It doesn't sound too bad, but it's definitely not as fast and tight as I would like. When I get a chance I'm going to try your method of limiting Q and gain in MSO and see what happens. I'm looking at MSO now and just a quick question abe PEQ Parameter limits: Do you leave minimum Q at 1.0 and put maximum Q 8.651? Also, do you set your maximum center frenquency to 200 hz?
Yes, those are the Q limits that I use. Max center frequency should be the same as the max of your optimization range. So if you optimize up to 200 Hz, then that should be the limit. If you optimize to 160 Hz, then use 160.
Spectrogram is also a function of the room and how much *it* rings. This, in turn, is a result of how the room is constructed, whether the boundaries are resilient or not. Finally, it's also impacted to a lesser degree by the bass trapping in your room. I'm working to add proper bass traps to my own room soon to further improve things on the low end.
HD version is still processing but should be available soon!
Great video, thanks! Just one thing, at 26:26 - aside from the null, I think you actually do have enough output, even for a 100-120Hz crossover. THX spec bass management as I understand it will put a 12dB HP rolloffs on "small" speakers, but 24dB LPF on the sub. So, your target curve to see if the room correction software run later has enough output to play with, should be a 24dB LPF at the highest XO freq you're going to use.
I do have plenty of output for that (tried to keep the video simple). However, it sounds like crap when crossed over that high. Things become too localizable and it really hurts the immersion. I don't remember exactly when I made this video. However, my solution is using intermediate bass management in Trinnov. I cross the Atmos speakers at 120 Hz over to the nearest listener level speaker, and then that gets crossed at 80 Hz to the subs. It works really well as those localizable frequencies are kept much closer (spatially) to the Atmos speaker in question so the immersion isn't broken. Only Trinnov and Storm have this capability natively to my knowledge. I use it quite often for clients and it works well.
The real solution is to get Atmos speakers that don't suck. LOL!
Also - you are correct regarding bass management filters for most processors. The LPF is 4th order on the subs. The HPF is 2nd order on the speaker. However, THX are assuming that the speaker is sealed and has a natural rolloff of 12 dB / octave (2nd order). When another 2nd order is applied to that natural roll off, the result is a 4th order HPF which matches the 4th order LPF on the sub side of the crossover. These are typically LR filters so the sum should be flat in magnitude and phase at Fc. It's worth validating the speaker in question's response to ensure reality matches THX's assumptions.
@@jeffmeryThanks, wow, Trinnov/Storm really do allow for some crazy bass management schemes - rolling off "to the nearest speaker" for speakers with high XOs sounds like an amazing thing. Any-who, just wanted to point out the 12/24 rolloffs usually done by the AVRs us mere mortals use :) THX-heritage, but seems to be the norm now, even for non-THX AVRs. I really wish selecting slope was available to us; many of us use LCR's getting down to the 40-60Hz-range, but we choose to still use a crossover at 80Hz, so many of us would likely be better off with 24/24 slopes (or 18/24 - assuming we all have sealed speakers rolling off at exactly 80Hz - in-room! - is a gutsy assumption).
@@DanielNilssonSeI agree that a selectable slope would be ideal.
Great video Jeff. In limiting Q's and gains, are you doing so in REW or MSO...I figured MSO? But the reason I ask is because at the end of your video, you show your EQ target adjustments in REW.
All of my sub equalization is done in MSO so that's where I limit the Q and gain. I do use REW EQ for some things as well so I do limit things there too.
These videos are awesome! Quick question: Where in MSO do I set the +/- 6 dB gain limit? Is it under PEQ Parameter Limits, where there is a default Maximum Cut of 15 dB and a default Maximum Gain of 0 dB? Would I change those to 6 dB and 6 dB? Or do I just change the Max Cut to 6 dB? Or do I manage this under Constraints, setting Restrict Total PEQ Boost to 6 dB and the same for Restrict Total PEQ Cut? Sorry if this is a dumb question!
No dumb questions :-)
The easiest way is to start a new project in MSO from scratch. Use the measurement import and configuration wizards, all of the gain blocks will have the updated limits and be setup in the correct places.
You can also manually set them, as you note above, in the PEQ parameter limits. You should use + and - 6 dB and not 0 and -6 dB. MSO can't know which sub will need what settings when it starts. When it finishes, though, it will set everything correctly in the "minimum gain settings" section of the filter report after the optimization completes.
If you choose to set them manually, make sure there is a gain block under the shared filters as well, and that it has a range of +/- 24 dB.
Finally found the time to run the updated MSO. Best results I’ve had using the limited Qs. Within 2 db out to 200 hz with four MLPs.
Great video. Can’t wait to give this a try myself. I do have one question when we are eq’ing our subs flat. Do you have a video on what house curve you’ve integrated with your room correction software? And can you do a video on how you go about implementing your room correction software.
I'm using a very traditional / typical Harman style curve. Depending on the specific room correction you use, you can often import curve targets directly for use. There are some good examples at this link over on ASR: audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-collection-of-speaker-target-responses-in-csv-txt-format.16401/
Of the several listed in the first two posts, mine is probably closest to Rtings curve in the first post or maybe the average of several curves in the second post. It doesn't exactly match either, but those are closest. Generally speaking, you want the overall slope to be -10 dB from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. There's room in there for personal preference so don't feel like that's a hard rule. I try to take the natural response from my speakers and just smooth out a few things my room does to them.
The problem with doing a video on how I choose to implement my room correction is that it doesn't necessarily apply to other folks. I should have done a video on Dirac Live before I changed processors last July. My current room correction isn't applicable to many people.
Are there particular topics in room correction that you're interested in
@@jeffmery Hi Jeff. I have watched all your vids and subscribed! thanks for everything. How would I implement a house curve? I have a Yamaha 3080 with YPAO, and you mentioned it in another video for easy curve implementation but did not say how. I could not understand on the linked ASR
@@jacobbarthel3103 The trouble with YPAO in that receiver (I have its little brother the 1080) is that the user isn't given much control over things. I haven't played with the newest version, but I hear it's a lot more flexible.
When I was using the 1080, I implemented my house curve in the miniDSP. The easiest way is to use a "low shelf" filter on the input side of the miniDSP. I recommend starting with a center frequency of 47 Hz, a gain of 3 dB, and a Q of 0.707. Always leave the Q at 0.707, but feel free to experiment with the center frequency and the amount of gain. The changes happen almost instantly so it makes it really easy to experiment and find what you like.
The problem with a low-shelf filter is that it boosts everything below the center frequency. This could cause some issues if you have ported subs that don't have any protection built-in. If you like the sound you get from a low-shelf, but it causes chuffing or other noise from your sub, switch to a normal PEQ filter. Use the same parameters as the low shelf filter to start. You can change the Q on the PEQ filter though. A lower number makes the filter "wider" and will boost a larger range of frequencies. A higher number will make it more narrow for a lower range of frequencies. I don't recommend going above a Q of 8.651.
You'll just need to experiment to find out what you like and what works with your equipment in your room.
@@jeffmery Thank you so much for the detailed response! Working on it now. This is addicting.
Hey Jeff, a few questions for ya... 1. What measurement range are you using to take the REW measurements for MSO? 2. Are you bypassing your AVR to avoid any Crossover limits the AVR might set when taking the measurements? 3. How many total seats and or rows are you measuring?
When you set MSO are you setting it up for Flat as Possible or for Seat to Seat consistancy?
1. 10 Hz - 300 Hz
2. Yes. I temporarily plug my miniDSP into the "R" channel and set my mains to "Large" (or however you need to disable bass management). Then sweep the "R" channel from 10 Hz - 300 Hz and you get a full range sweep. Note that this will be 10 dB *lower* in output than sweeping the LFE channel. That's not a problem for a sub-only optimization. Denon/Marantz have a configurable LPF on the LFE. You could also set that as high as possible (250 Hz I think) if you don't want to move cables around. You'd then sweep LFE and not "R", and no reason to change your bass management on your non-sub speakers.
3. I have one row of 4 seats. Measure each sub one time at each position. For me that's 4 subs x 4 positions = 16 total measurements for import into MSO. There's really no reason to measure more than that.
4. Minimize seat-to-seat consistency is what works best in my room. I recommend starting there and experimenting a bit before trying other optimization methods. Be sure to read the docs to understand how those methods work and what kind of results they might produce. You're obviously not going to hurt anything, but just to have reasonable expectations.
Great video Jeff. This helped a lot!
Just a question though:
Where exactly do you set the 6db gain limit in MSO? Under PEQ Parameter Limits (Maximum Cut and Maximum Boost)?
Or do you set it in the Application Options > Filter Parameter Defaults (Gain)?
PEQ Parameter Limits will set it for each individual PEQ filter in the optimization.
The application options setting allows you to set a personal “default” value.
@@jeffmery Thank you! So in that case I should just put a value of 6db for Maximum Cut and also 6db for Maximum Boost correct? Am I understanding that correctly?
@@BenTan89 that should work 👍
@@jeffmery Thank you! 1 last question if you don't mind and I've been meaning to ask this for a very long time: what exactly do I do with the value on the Gain block in the Shared filter?
MSO is suggesting me a -8.19 on the shared gain block, where do I input this value into the minidsp2x4HD?
@@BenTan89 Ignore that one. Use only the values from the “Final” gain section at the very bottom of the filter report. MSO discards that block for you.
Hey Jeff, I'd be curious to see your MSO / MiniDSP results vs Dirac Bass Control. Does one do better than the other, or are the results relatively similar? It seems that maybe DLBC could be a bit tighter just due to the abscence of the additional delay added by the MiniDSP, but perhaps I'm wrong about that. The only reason I ask is because I'm considering one of the new x4800 Denon receivers and they are tentatively slated to get DLBC soon and since they have 4 independent SW outputs, I may be able to take the MiniDSP out of the signal change. Just curious about your thoughts on DLBC.
The results are more similar than different TBH. I actually used MSO *with* DLBC when I owned a Dirac processor. There was a very small improvement in my more challenging seating locations with that combination. However, DLBC had a much easier time getting the crossover transitions smooth for all speaker groups using them both together. The bonus, if you already have a miniDSP, is that you. just need the single-sub license for DLBC which makes combining the two much more cost effective.
If you don't want to do both together (it's a lot of time and work with MSO), then I think DLBC does a great job on its own. I absolutely mean that. It can take some work to get everything just right, but the results are quite good.
Jeff,
Hope you don’t mind if I ask a few more questions:
(1)(a) I am still confused by your usage of the term ‘Gain’. At first I thought you were referring to the ‘gain block’ present in the left side/corresponding right hand side of the screen after running a calibration but after viewing a question posed by a viewer of this video (I believe Michael Stone?) and your subsequent reply I am now unsure. I believe you indicated to him that in fact you were referring to the gain/boost for the individual PEQs? Can you please clarify if you mean the individual subwoofer gain/volume or do you mean the boost/cut of an individual PEQ?
(1)(b) If you are referring to the ‘Gain’ block found after running a calibration can you please explain to me how to use the parameters +3/-3 in any particular optimization? Previously you had advised me to ‘save’ the parameters after specifying such parameters in the right side of the screen but when I do so and then in turn run a subsequent calibration I still usually receive a result where one (if not two or more) subwoofers receive a ‘Gain’ setting that exceeds the range of +3/-3 (it appears the limits I have specified are not ‘taking’/saving in terms of subsequent calibrations…….is this where the “Normalize Gains” feature comes into play and if so how do you use such feature (Note: I have read the manual/tutorial and I am still not sure). Lastly, I think at the end if the day I may be mixing concepts??? In this video you say plus/minus six but in a previous comment to me you say plus/minus 3db?
2) Now that you are recommending a max ‘Q’ of 8.651 are you also recommending to use all 10 PEQ filters available in the Minidsp 2X4 HD (I believe you previously stated in a prior video you typically used 4 but you didn’t have a strong position on this matter). Either way, what is the max boost/cut you eecommend in respect to any individual PEQ filter?
(3) When optimizing for a subs only configuration do you ever bump up against the voltage limitations inherent to the MiniDsp 2X4 HD or is it a non-issue for you? If so, do you find that running the gains on the individual subwoofers (via the “knob” on the subwoofer itself) thus necessitating the need to lower the volume via the Minidsp 2X4 HD plugin on the “input” side helps remedy this issue (any suggestions you may have to avoid exceeding the voltage limitations of the Mindsp 2X4 HD would be helpful).
(4) I realize you don’t use a denon/marantz receiver but do you have any suggestions in how to stay within the required range for the subwoofer distance setting (since the minidsp 2X4 HD adds a bit of delay in and of itself it appears this is creating a problem for me when I then in term add the delays prescribed by MSO and then try to perform the subwoofer distance ‘tweak’) for purposes of aligning my subs with mains (ie. my Denon AVR (model: 8500HA) does not provide enough if a range in terms of the subwoofer distance field.
Thanks so much!
1a) Gain is technically anywhere we add voltage. That can be super confusing when i'm explaining stuff and I'll be more explicit in the future. Depending on what you're trying to accomplish, we may adjust the range of gain allowed on either the gain block or within the PEQ filter limits. The most common adjustment of these is to try and preserve more headroom and not cut so much output.
1b) That +/- 3 dB range can be used in a few places. I most commonly recommend it in the output channel gain blocks. When using the configuration wizard, the default of that block is +/- 6 dB. This means we could have subs up to 12 dB apart which is a pretty big difference. +/- 3 dB still gives MSO room to work, but our subs won't be more than 6 dB apart from at least an overall gain point of view. The other area we might use this when we use both input and output PEQ filters. I will set the ranges and values of the input PEQ filters as usual according to the optimization parameters. I'll then add a small number of PEQ filters on the output channels to help smooth things out a little more. I almost always limit these filters to +/- 3 dB or less (usually less). I want to keep the sub output as consistent as possible, but give MSO a few more options for a smoother response.
You do have some confusion on which gain is which so I hope this ^^ helps and sorry for the part I played in that! You should also look at the "Final gains" section of the filter report to get the correct gain values for us in your DSP. These will automatically be normalized, and will ignore the shared gain block (which is what we want).
2) I typically start with a low-ish number of 4-6 PEQ filters and work my way up until I'm satisfied with the results. There are many schools of thought on this, but I'm in the "as little PEQ as needed" camp. I have friends using up to 18 filters per output channel though and have no issues with how it sounds. Unfortunately there isn't a hard/fast rule here. I would never boost more than 4.5 dB and even then only if I know the system very well. It's easy to get into trouble with gain. It's best to allow 0 dB gain and only cuts. Then turn up the gain on the sub amplifiers to get back to the correct volume level.
3) I've never hit the voltage limit of the 2x4HD. If you're using minimal digital gain, then the miniDSP shouldn't be a problem. If you need more overall output (headroom) so that you can cut more, definitely use those knobs on the sub amps. It's why they're there in the first place :-). There are two voltage concerns on the miniDSP. Output voltage is fixed to 2V. That should be plenty. The input voltage sensitivity is configurable. The default is 2V and it can be changed to 4V by moving jumpers inside the miniDSP. This is really about "how much voltage does it take to hit 0 dbFS?". I don't think the 8500A outputs more than 2V so it should be fine in the default setting. Some AVRs/Processors can and do put out a ton of voltage. This is particularly true when using balanced outputs with a balanced -> unbalanced cable converter. That's where you can get into issues. The Art Clean Box Pro is a great solution for mixing balanced and unbalanced connections. Inexpensive and very low noise.
4) I can't remember how much range the Denon gives you for distance (delay). One thing you can do is set it at something like 12 feet or 4 meters before you measure for the sub distance tweak. Then you have some flexibility to bring them in and out if needed. If you need to go further out than the Denon allows, you can always implement that delay in the miniDSP as well. Though if you're going that far out, you might want to consider a different crossover frequency.
Let me know if all this helps or hurts ;-)
@@jeffmery thanks so much for the speedy reply! Your comment regarding paying attention to the Final Gains section of the report is very interesting……I have only been paying mind to the “Minimal” section of the report. I will take note
Thanks again!
Fumbling my way through this and trying to figure out a couple things. Looking over the comments/replies below, if I understand correctly you can limit maximum Q (8.651 in this case) and Gain (±6dB) in MSO's Optimization Options > PEQ Parameter Limits section. Those will then be taken into account, neither exceeded, as part of MSO's optimization routine. Set it and forget it.
The other question I had is to your section on equalization up to 1 octave above the crossover frequency. Your example concisely illustrates the importance of doing this. But why did you choose 100Hz (with subsequent equalization extension to 200Hz)? Do you select based on the maximum crossover point used in the main speaker channels? Otherwise? With that value in hand, do you simply enter it as part of the equalization range in MSO's Optimization Options > Criteria > Frequency Range to Optimize section, plugging as the maximum value?
Correct on your first statement. MSO allows you to set the min/max allowable values for any filter. This is helpful to get things dialed in or to stay within the capabilities of your equipment.
It's been a while since I did the video so I don't recall why I chose 100 Hz for the video. It's best to understand the anechoic capabilities of the speakers in question, then compare that to the in-room response to determine a (potentially) good crossover frequency. It's a balance of not overdriving non-sub speakers, getting the most impact out of the bass frequencies, all while avoiding localization of sounds. I actually almost always start at 80 Hz and see where that gets me. It's pretty rare for me to deviate much from that by the time I get to the end results, but it does happen with exceptionally good (or bad) speakers.
Once it's chosen, I simply double that value and use it for the upper bounds of the optimization range as well as the upper bounds for the center frequency (Fc) of any filters in use.
Jeff my man! We need an updated tutorial. MSO has gotten a few updates since this video.
Plz plz
I don’t have enough subs at the moment (just 2) for a video to be worthwhile. I’m waiting on two more to arrive and hope to get a new video done after that.
@@jeffmery fair enough. Take your time, no stress ❤️
So do you still maintain that is better to use REW for optimizing multiple subs for one listening position? Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t believe it is possible to specify the “desired Q” values in REW; moreover, I don’t think REW provides the individual “Gain” values for each sub?
Thanks
REW provides equivalent results with less effort on a single listening position. For N subs, it's N sweeps, N-1 time alignment via the alignment tool, then auto EQ the combined response. That could be done in 10-15 mins from start to finish.
For MSO at a single position with the same N subs, it's N sweeps, MSO import & config wizards, figure out what you want to use to optimize things, create a config for each, optimize each for probably 5 mins, compare results & implement. That's probably a 30 min cycle for someone such as myself very familiar with MSO; significantly longer if you're new to MSO and learning.
If I only cared about one position, I'd be using REW myself for the exact reasons above.
You are correct that REW doesn't allow manual specification of permitted Q values. It has a check box to "allow narrow Q below 200 Hz" or something similar to that. I think the max is around 4 or 5 but would need to verify that. Again, correct that REW does not take gain of speakers into account automatically as a parameter for equalization. You would need to do that manually in REW just as you would with all-pass filters.
I hope this helps!
@@jeffmery Thanks so much for your reply!
After you've done everything in MSO, do you allow the room correction software correct what MSO has already done or do you limit it to like 'don't correct under 200hz'?
I personally allow the room correction software to correct what MSO has done. Admittedly, this really depends on how good the room correction software functions. I've certainly seen most screw up more than they fix.
I always suggest a "trust but verify" approach. Run room correction, then verify the results with REW to see if they are okay or not. If so, great. If not, then experiment with the room correction software settings. Limiting the correction range, as you've suggested, is something to try. Be aware that that can also mess up the main speakers depending on how specific your room correction allow you to get. E.G., can i limit correction on just the subs? What's happening in the crossover region with limited correction? What about the entire range below the transition frequency of the room?
Lots of things to look at for sure!
@@jeffmery thank you Jeff! I use ARC Genesis and it’s customizable. I’ll see what happens after the verification!
@@kelvinrandolph8235 Yeah that's a good one with a lot of flexibility. Let me know how it works out!
@@jeffmery will do!
I know you did the subs only MSO - is there a chance you have time to do the mains and subs version? I am on a miniDSP SHD and would love to see the end to end for that. I have not been able to get great results and I believe I have good measurements. It would be helpful to see you or someone who is comfortable with MSO show some of the iterations on getting things ready for Dirac.
Sorry for the delay in my reply. I do want to do a subs+mains video, but it’s a lower priority for me. I did just upgrade my miniDSP from a 2x4 HD to a Flex TRS. The 2x4 HD had been a barrier to a full subs+mains for me as my amps are balanced and the output voltage from the 2x4 HD was too low to properly drive them without noise. The Flex TRS is fully balanced so I at least have most of the equipment I need. I honestly don’t think I could get to this before the new year, but we’ll see.
@@jeffmery I ask because I am getting substandard results with MSO that I want to chalk up to user error. I only have 2 subs and the manual setup post Dirac measures and sounds better than the MSO result. I am doing a few things like trying to get the crossover down to 50Hz because that is where the drop off occurs. No rush. I am certain I am missing something important. I do think I have good REW measurements of anyone wants to see them.
@@MichaelAmster I understand. It’s easy to mess something up and not realize it until your verification doesn’t match the prediction. I’ve been there, many, many times!
Can you elaborate on “manual setup post Dirac”? I’m not sure I understand that. IIRC, with the SHD, the process would be a subs+mains with MSO, getting everything nicely lined up, then running Dirac for overall correction. I could see the Dirac optimization really screwing with the MSO work due to Dirac’s heavy use of all-pass filters. Suppose I could upgrade the Flex to Dirac Live, but I don’t have the cash right now due to other pending projects.
@@MichaelAmster I can’t look at them until the weekend, but send those measurements to jeff at bisonhta dot com and I’ll take a look.
@@jeffmery sorry. I ran MSO, the measured the results with REW. I also just timed the subs, adjusted some levels using REW an the results were better with that manual process. I proceeded to run Dirac on both sets (on different configs in miniDSP SHD). I then re-ran REW and the non-MSO config sounded and measured better. I hope that is clearer.
Jeff can you explain me one thing regarding PEQ settings: I have set max boost at 3db and set a max total boost restriction at 3.1db, just as you have taught. Why is it that MSO ends up with two PEQ filters at the same sub, same frequency and with a boost of 3db each, resulting in 6db overall boost (example: 2xPEQ filters at 71hz, 3db boost each, one sub). I thought the constraint wouldn't allow this to happen? All of my settings are just as you have taught.
Man I've seen this and the explanation before but I cannot find it. I'm looking and will ask Andy directly if I can't find the answer.
@@jeffmery great, looking forward to it. Thanks!
@@BuffSquadBigBenni 2 quick questions: What version of MSO are you using? Do you mind e-mailing your MSOP file over to me at jeff -at- bisonhta -dot- com?
Where I thought I had read an answer, was actually a request to look at the file, but the OP didn't follow up with the file.
@@BuffSquadBigBenni Posting here just in case anyone is reading. Duplicate filters on a given channel are not a problem. To provide the smoothest response, MSO determined that it needed more gain than we would allow in a single filter, so it used a second filter to get the gain that solved the problem.
As long as the overall filter channel responses don't exceed the max boost/cut that we use within "Constraints", stacking filters is just fine :-).
@@jeffmery thank you Jeff. Can you please explain to me how the constraints work then? My max boost constraint is set at 3.1db, but two stacked 3db filters equals 6db? What does the 3.1db constraint actually do? Why even use constraints when you already specify max cut and boost elsewhere in MSO (criteria).
So, do you only ever boost by about +4? Is there a limit to how much you can use negative numbers too?
Going to answer that in reverse order.
There's minimal downside to cutting output. However, cutting too much can result in simply not enough overall output from the system. This is system and room dependent so it's hard to give a concrete answer. Additionally, there are clear benefits to maximizing headroom and doing the minimal amount of work to get a reasonable response. Dave Boswell has come up with a pretty interesting solution to maximize headroom thereby preserving as much output as possible. When my next two subs arrive, I plan to use his method and potentially produce a video on it.
Regarding gains, the only time I use significant gain (above 3-4 dB) is when boosting the low end of sealed subs to counter their natural low end roll off. Again, how much can be done depends on the system, room, and even listening levels. This is something to experiment with. It's downright dangerous to do on ported subs though so don't do it there.
Thanks. When you EQ in REW is it best for REW to say 0 headroom? Do ever look at that? I EQ to a flat line, and put a room curve in afterwards. Can MSO find the exact best timing delay for a position better than REW?@@jeffmery
@@hdmoviesource In the EQ window, that's the headroom of the EQ required to avoid clipping. This all depends on the gain structure of the entire system. If you don't use gains, then you don't have to worry about head room. If you use gains, then it's a concern.
A simple example. If you need to add 3 dB of boost, you need to have 3 dB of headroom somewhere in the system. If you listen at 0 dB (max volume), then you will likely clip the output (bad). But if you never listen louder than -15 dB, then there's some room to add some gain.
That's grossly oversimplifying things, but I think it gives a good enough idea.
MSO is awesome, but it depends on your goals. If you only care about one seat, then REW delivers fantastic results much faster with less effort. If you care about the response at many seats, then MSO is better. Yes, MSO can be used for a single seat. Yes it will be more precise than manual work, but is the time and effort worth it for a small incremental gain at a single seat? Only you can answer that questions 🙂
@@jeffmery I haven't used MSO but I'd love to see what it can do with timing. Thanks.
Can you provide a link or documentation for this method by Dave? Also what is the max gain you recommend when using ported subs?@@jeffmery
I tried MSO a few times, and I never really liked the resulting sound. I must be the type that likes imperfect sound.
You're not the only one. There are some situations that can result in MSO doing ... unexpected (?) things. MSO cares about one thing only: Matching the response to the target curve.
The default way of doing that, which is used in the original and current MSO tutorials and is what my videos were based on, can result in a single sub doing all the work for a significant amount of bandwidth. That's bad. It can result in a loss of impact and tactile response as well as localization depending on where in the bandwidth this occurs.
I had this issue in my own room. The frequency response was flat, but was just missing the presence or impact one would expect.
Andy, the creator of MSO, put me on the path of an alternate method that also maximizes output from all subs. It consciously trades output for a slightly more uneven response. However, most folks are going to run room correction afterwards so that isn't much of an issue.
I need to do a video on this, but haven't had the time. Hopefully between now and the end of the year.
@@jeffmery Expect several views from me when it goes live.
Couple of questions: what do you think about using a minimum Q of .2? Also, while we are waiting for the video is there anything in writing we can read regarding the ‘alternative approach’ you mention?
@@ts6640 No problems I'm aware of with a small minimum Q. That will just permit very broad-band adjustments.
I owe everyone a video on the "alternate" approach. I had hoped to get it done over the holidays but ran out of time. It doesn't work in every situation, but potentially solves some problems for some people. It's still on my list and I hope to get to it soon.
@@jeffmery As always, appreciate your help!