Max2

They're posting some serious numbers

Re ran it and it got much more accurate measurements except for the sub. Its probably the best run I have heard from it and the change back and fourth is much less dramatic. It did tell me that both front speaks and the rear left surround were out of phase. I knew this was bogus, but went ahead and checked and wiring was fine. It has done this before on occasion, but has given the error with just my right rear. Maybe I have a flaw somewhere. Yes, tripod leveled with mic pointed at ceiling. This time I took measurements at the rear of my listening zone in a rectangle fashion. I did do some listening tests and its sounds much better showing a lot less exaggeration, but Im still getting boosts that are overtaking delicate passages that go unheard with Audyssey on.

Just re-ran it guys with the mic tweeter height for the K's. I ran four different spots in the front listening area this way, then I dropped the tripod and ran it in front of each rear LaScalas about 4 feet away for left and right. For the last measurement I put the tripod in the center of my couch a little higher than ear level. It said my left front was 12 ft away which is about a foot short. The right front 6.8 ft away which is crazy. The center was about 4 feet too short and get this, it said the sub was 28 ft. away. I went ahead and gave it a listen even though the numbers were crazy and believe it or not I think it sounded a tad less bright. Im still concerned about the crazy distance calculations, but they don't sound like they are out of whack, but Im thinking surely they are. I have some crude charts Im going to post and maybe I can get some feedback. The thing is, I don't know if these charts are before the correction or after.

Not a Cornwall II. Still a good buy though

Don't the Jubs have dual 12" woofers and the Jamboree have dual 15" woofers? I wonder how much difference this alone would make with both optimized cabs? Are the Jubs a little larger?

I think I may try downloading REW to my laptop and using my Audyssey mic to try and get a current reading. Does anyone have any advice on this?

All of this room correction, no matter what brand or version is pretty much worthless with so many variables involved unless you can take a real response measurement on the room after the changes, correct? I mean there are a few people that love treble and love jacking the bass, but getting a flat room response couldn't be more in the wrong direction. Its like someone plugged in a 1980's EQ into my source and just made a big smiley face with the adjustments and voila, perfection

Thanks. I picked it up from a Photo website a few years back when I was really in to photography. The thing is, it works! You know exactly how much fore or aft your lens and the auto focus is compensating for. No way I can manual focus. My eyes are too bad and I have some serious crops that are way too unforgiving.

Same thing with my Denon. You either take what Audyssey gives you or you lose it by going in to manual EQ mode. Like mentioned ealier, you can get the Audyssey Pro and have some room for adjustments, but Im in the dark and don't know anything about it other than what I read a year or so on it. When I first bought my 4311, many people were complaining about the harshness it added on another forum. And some cried foul about flawed mics. After a while I figured it was just killing the cleanness on the amp side adding distortion similar to messing with an EQ or sending the source through it. I don't need or want any color added to my sound, but to boost things to get a flat response I guess I have no choice. If I raise my mic to the height of my K's then Im wondering how my much shorter LaScalas will be boosted on the top end due to their much lower profile. I messed around with Aud last night listening to DTS master HD, LPCM and even DSD on a SACD with Aud and without. At lower levels its not bad and wakes up things a bit, but it still just makes things so wet that you cant hear the delicates on lossless recordings. Now a really bad 128K file it shines up just fine, but I just cant get a very mild change that a really good recording needs. BTW, thanks for all the great info guys.

There always seems to be give and take when tuning a zoom lens. What does wonders for the wide end screws up the zoom on the long end, or at least that has been my experience. I try to tune my zooms at the focal length that I use them most regularly. I lay out a 18" ruler, tripod the body and pick a number as a target. You can immediately see if the lens is front or back focusing where the tuning is set by which number is more in focus, behind your target or in front. I don't know much about Nikon lenses, but from what I have seen their kit lenses are much better than the Canon kit lenses. Once you hit the Canon L series, I think its a wash with the Nikon ED line. I think the newer Nikons are the way to go and offer a better deal unless your a Canon diehard and want to get into spending 4-6K on a nice setup.

Thats a sharp lens and those pics look superb.

Tell us about your room - and perhaps a picture...? I've a hunch that Audyssey does much better in relatively dead rooms with well controlled room modes. It has never worked well in my relatively live room (i.e., live compared to typical HT rooms). I use Audyssey only for setting channel delays and channel gains - but not EQ or "dynamic EQ". These functions have never worked at all in my room. I've found that REW with a microphone works much better. I also traded out to a Behringer DEQ2496 with the same microphone to do pink noise auto-EQ averaged over time -- this seems to work much better in coordination. REW does up sweeps like Audyssey does. I use both units to walk into the EQ, then transferred the EQ settings to my active crossovers. Voila! Chris Room is 20' wide and 16' deep, and too much furniture. Its certainly not a proper theater or sound room. Also it has a Dovetail 8' ceiling and carpeted floor. What Im hearing is just a boosted top end sound with just Audyssey running. Adding the Dynamic EQ option just boosts bass and treble even more. With K's up front and LaScala rears I hear everything its doing, even as bad as my ears are. I have run it and re -run it with different seating positions and it makes no difference. Im wondering if the sweeps are trying to get the K-77's to pull way past 17khz where they are pretty much done. If so, this may be why its trying to boost them so much and giving them a harsh sound. Its really noticeable with a good recording, its just shrilled all the details out.

Here you go dtel. The Soggy Dollar HD Cam on Jost Van Dyke. Bookmark this as it can be very entertaining from morning to afternoon. I think it updates every few minutes http://www.soggydollar.com/webcam.aspx

IMO, that is a friggin steal as long as they haven't been wet.

Maybe you guys can enlighten me on Audyssey. First off, Im probably 95%+ music with my 5 channel setup. But no matter what source it seems its just a calculation jacking with EQ settings. It sounds like clarity takes a dive, my tweeters become harsh and my mids become compressed. Looking at the charts it looks like it is peaking the tweeters trying to get them to get flat at 20K cycles and changing settings all over the place. Maybe Movies would be a better for Aud. and maybe it shouldn't be used for music at all, but the so called "room correction" isn't making my tunes sound better. Should I get some software and a Mic and just get a real room reading?

I have bookshelf speakers set up, problem with all mini systems is simple, when I hear a song that just must be turned up beyond 85db or so a mini speaker will distort (at least all I have heard / owned) now with headphones I am forced to keep the volume at a reasonable level, I also have a hearing problem in my left ear, If I hear a certain freq a little to loud my ear sort of breaks up like a speaker with a bad cone IE... bad static. With headphones believe it or not this is less a problem now in a large room with speakers set up, I still get the left ear thing happening but not at the same db / loudness. IE... I am fine at 85 to 90 db much above that and it starts to break up I understand, but if you haven't heard these little setups, they will pump out 106db. They really are impressive when you count the sub in. I get the ear thing as well. I have ruptured both eardrums so far in life and now everything sounds like crap unless a horn is involved.

Many thanks dtel ! I have been trying to load more on my hosting site, so I will start putting a few out at a time.

Surely you can find room for this little setup Joe. Headphones cant be good for your ears all the time. I have this hooked to a TV in my bar and it has $400-500 dollar sound just for a mere $100 bucks.

I haven't owned my K's for very long, but I still get the urge to break out the table saw and buy a set of Jamboree plans. Then the next day I'm surfing around and say, "I don't need new speaks, I need a amp to compliment my setup." The next day, its, I don't need any of that stuff, I really need a few room treatment panels. By Friday, I sit down, put on something good and realize just how good my system sounds to my ears and say to myself, "I actually need nothing.....except another glass of Bourbon" Perhaps I need to start drinking Oh it does wonders for my ears AND my guitar playing I do however end up at the same crossroads with the liquor I want this But all I need is this

Find out if it crackles in all of the drivers or just one. You could easily end up having $250+ in both once you replace drivers

Trunk Bay. Early before the crowd Pusser's at Marina Cay BVI The Bath's on Virgin Gorda

I haven't owned my K's for very long, but I still get the urge to break out the table saw and buy a set of Jamboree plans. Then the next day I'm surfing around and say, "I don't need new speaks, I need a amp to compliment my setup." The next day, its, I don't need any of that stuff, I really need a few room treatment panels. By Friday, I sit down, put on something good and realize just how good my system sounds to my ears and say to myself, "I actually need nothing.....except another glass of Bourbon"

Try moving your top dial to P mode (Program). This will give you the ability to adjust the exposure a little with your rear wheel AND it will allow you to set the focus to center only. In A mode (Auto) the camera won't let you change the focus point. This can cause problems because the camera just calculates what you want in focus, so most of the time your target won't be in focus, but some other part will. This is crucial when cropping for extreme close ups.

Those are great shots Joe. A few things you might try with your bug shots. Bump your ISO to 400 even when sunny outside, this will speed up the shutter taking care of the out of focus object. sometimes I even go to 800 ISO. This will also allow you to stop down which will get more of the whole perimeter in focus, like dtel mentioned. When taking shots of moving bugs try setting your camera in its highest speed of multi shots and set the focus on your T3i to AI focus AF. This will allow it to track track the insects as it is moving. Also move your focus point to just the center red point. Tis way it will only focus on that center point and your target. Can you tell I have a Canon too?

I had about 30 minutes before work this morning and decided to do some quick A/B Comparison using a scene from The Book of Eli where they destroy the house. I've always been impressed with the detail of this scene and was curious how the LaScalas compared. From this first initial test, to my ears, the LaScalas were much brighter and more detailed than the 83's. Dialog also was more prominent. I did not use an SPL meter to make sure both A/B were at the same volume but probably will do that during my next test to try and make it as fair of a comparison as possible. Honestly, I'm very impressed with the sound of the LaScalas. Did Youthman just say that out loud? I never would have thought I would have uttered those words. I even did a very quick A/B using the 83's as mains and switching between a single LaScala for a center and the RC-64. Again, the LaScala seemed to be more pronounced and detailed than the RC-64. Again, not a totally fair comparison since the RC-64 is 8ft in the air angled downwards towards the listening area while the LaScala is on the floor straight in front of me. I'll likely have to bring the RC-64 down and place it on top of the LaScala to get a more fair comparison as well as level match them. You might recap the X-overs or totally replace them before giving them a fair shake, although I'm betting you don't part with the big horns now. IMO, you can always add more bass, but you cant get the clarity or that huge soundstage out of a smaller mid. I can see movie guys sticking with the reference line, but music, its Heritage all the way. Ask Dean about these. They're are reasonable priced, have the adjustable mid and I have put them head to head with recapped factory A's and recapped AL-3's in my LaScala's. To my ears they have more detail and clarity than the factory X-overs.