[Owen Bartley]

I just had a thought while I was reading through some of the processing threads. What's the appropriate way to set up transducers (Buttkickers, Aura Bass Shakers, etc.) in a setup that is EQ'ed by Audyssey? There seem to be lots of different situations... single sub, dual sub with single output, dual sub with dual output, etc. so let's look specifically at the one I expect to find myself in: dual sub, Front row and back row Buttkickers, and a yet-undetermined processor with individual .2 outputs (not just a y-split) and Audyssey XT32.

If I run the BKs piggybacking off one of the sub outputs, it will have whatever EQ Audyssey decides is correct applied to it. If I run the BKs from one output and piggyback the 2 subs off each other, then I will have mono sub equalization and lose the benefit of having the individual .2 processing on the outputs.

If I run one sub from each output like normal, I could then piggyback one set of BKs from each as well, assuming I use 2 amps for the BKs. I could either do one channel in the front row and one channel for the back row, or mix them up to try to combine the output, but that might have some negative effects.

So what is the right way to do it? How do you set up your transducers in systems with Audyssey?

Oh, and what's with these Denon receivers with x.3 outputs? I just saw that today, which is interesting.

 

[tcarcio]

I don't think you should have the BK's on at all when running Audyssey. I shut mine off because if your buttkickers are shaking your couch when Audyssey pings them it would just be noise to Audyssey and not a frequency that it would correct. I think that will just screw up the cal alltogether. Now I don't know that for sure but I wonder what the company that makes buttkickers think about it. I have never read anywhere that BK's need to be EQ'd.

 

[tonyvdb]

I agree, bass shakers are not to be EQed with Audyssey. Hook them up after it has been run. Audyssey will not even "see" them if you dont have a sub also connected. as shakers only shake they dont have any real sound to them just noise.

 

[Dwight Angus]

Agreed. Shakers are a physical response not an audio response. Don't EQ shakers.

 

[Owen Bartley]

Sorry guys, was away for a few days, but I appreciate the replies.

I should have made my post more clear... I wasn't really interested in EQing the shakers, just concerned that they would be affected by the EQ that was applied to the subwoofers, by the nature of their shared connection.

I would definitely leave them off when running Audyssey, but when turned back on, they would be seeing the same EQ that the subs are. My main concerns were whether this would be detrimental to their effects, since they aren't subject to the same positioning, room nodes, etc.

***Edit, just another thought... if the shaker amp is in line with the sub amp, and the shakers are turned off for EQ with Audyssey, when they are turned back on for normal use, will that reduce the signal strength from the pre-out that is shared with the sub? Does that mean that the sub will see a weaker signal and be quieter than when it was properly EQ'ed? ...maybe I'm thinking too much about this.

So is it best to A) try to bypass the EQ altogether by putting the shakers on their own (hopefully separate) channel from one of the ".2" outputs, relegating both subwoofers to the remaining output, or B) to put each sub on its own channel, gaining the maximum benefit from Audyssey, and splitting the signals between the sub and shakers, knowing that they will have some degree of equalization applied to them and just living with it?

 

[rob1234]

Did you ever figure this out? I'm setting up basically the exact same thing and have the exact same concerns.

 

[Owen Bartley]

Rob, I haven't tried this because I don't have Audyssey, but I think what I would do in a case with 2 subs and Buttkickers is just leave the BK's off for Audyssey EQing and maximize the benefits of the subs, using each seperately (that is if you have the right version of Audyssey which will EQ the 2 subs individually). then just use one of those outputs split to the BK's. If possible to figure out, I'd choose the one that has the least amount of EQ applied.

 

[rob1234]

Thanks Owen, I will try that.

 

[jimbodude]

Let us know if you notice any difference with either setup. I'm in a similar boat - only one sub output on the receiver, but I have a sub and a shaker. Ran Audyssey with the shakers off, but now they are obviously getting the EQ'ed signal...

 

[RapalloAV]

I use Audyssey XT32 with four SVS SB13-Ultra subs up front, two 12" Velodyne in the back and two Clarke transducers under the floor.

I run XT32 with just the simple 1 mic setting (transducers on) I write down the distance that the transducers and rear subs are set to, then turn them off. I then re run XT32 for the full 8 mic positions, then after the calculation I reset the rear sub/transducer to the same distance I wrote down from the previous 1 mic run earlier.

If I run the transducers with the full XT32 on the whole experience of listening to them is a total disaster!!!!
The mic is picking up the vibration caused by the transducers.....No good.:unbelievable:

 

[Owen Bartley]

Thanks Murray, I appreciate the input from someone who has actually dealt with this scenario.

I wonder if it would make sense to make an output specifically for tactile transducers that doesn't have EQ applied to it, almost like the "direct" modes some receivers have. They probably aren't quite THAT popular though.