Just because your new-fangled receiver has an automatic calibration mic doesn't mean it's guaranteed to setup your speakers properly. Sure, the automatic calibration can be beneficial, but it will almost always get a few things wrong. We frequently read posts that say something to the effect
of "My receiver set my speakers to +10dB, my sub to -10dB, and set my
mains to large." Results like this are a good indicator that the auto-setup mic on your receiver has some major flaws. Sometimes the answer is just to relocate the mic and retest or change the position of some of your speakers, but typically the best route is to scrap the auto-setup mic and do things manually. For extra tips on how to properly place your speakers or setup your receiver, checkout our complete "Tips & Tricks" section.
The bottom line: Trust your knowledge and ears over what the receiver tells you. Use the auto-set-up calibration as a starting point and tweak levels and EQ until your desired response is achieved.
Credit: forum member j_garcia
kaiser_soze posts on January 12, 2013 22:37
I have played with more than one brand of receiver that provides this sort of capability. I did not get satisfactory results with any of them, but the results were far worse with some than others. And the most popular brand of this capability is intolerable as far as I am concerned, due to the extreme emphasis on high frequencies. Nothing sound the least bit natural. And I experimented at length with mic placement, and it didn't matter. The mic itself is not an issue, in theory at least, and it should not be an issue in reality, owing to the fact that it is so easy for this systems to incorporate correction for the mic. No, the problem is elsewhere. The premise that room response should be flat is wrong. Yeah, I knows that sounds counter-intuitive, but not if you think it over. To make the room response flat, the on-axis response anywhere close to the speaker has to have exaggerated treble output, to compensate for the fact that all the reflections from the side walls and especially the rear do not have as much treble. This of course is due to the simple fact that the speaker is more directional at high frequency. If the room response is flat, the on-axis, anechoic response of the speaker will be many dB higher at high treble frequency in comparison to most of the audible spectrum. This is simply a consequence of the way that conventional speakers behave. For them to sound good, the reflections from the walls, floor and ceiling have to be attenuated in the treble. It probably does make sense to try and correct for the major peaks and dips that occur in the upper bass and in the midrange for most speakers, but the problem is that the most popular of these products goes too far and strives to achieve an overall tonal balance that just isn't the least bit natural. In plain truth, it sounds damned awful.
ahblaza posts on January 02, 2013 09:45
brianedm;938910
It does an excellent job with dual subs. It makes set up a breeze
That's a good point, as your receiver not only has XT32 but dual independant sub EQ, some receivers that have XT32 do not necessarily have the SUB EQ feature which almost cost me $1000 to find out, I'm glad I read the fine print.
Cheers Jeff
Cliff_is posts on December 31, 2012 22:36
The mics tend to be pretty good when it comes to level and distance, except for sub(s).
The EQ function is generally pretty poor. We have actually starting taking measurements before/after on most of our new receiver reviews. the most recent Yamaha and Sony's I have measured had some issues. I have a Denon with MultiEQ XT I am going to take measurements on at some point to add that to the mix.
brianedm posts on December 31, 2012 13:03
panteragstk;938907
Did you notice a difference with the dual sub calibration?
Oh, and yes, I noticed a difference with the quality of my bass as well
brianedm posts on December 31, 2012 13:02
panteragstk;938907
Did you notice a difference with the dual sub calibration?
It does an excellent job with dual subs. It makes set up a breeze