Hi All,
I just had my Denon AVP with the Audessey room correction software professionally calibrated by the rep in Chicago. In a word, excellent. He spent 3 hours going over my setup and then using the software to correct the room. At the end, he played some very well-known demo material, both film and music to tweak the curve. It took what I thought was already a good presentation and made it much better. The soundfield is now much more coherent, with excellent dialog and prsentation of the surround ambient effects. Well worth the $450 to do. Of the $450, $150 was for the license to unlock the software in the AVP, and $300 was for his time. After everything was set, we played some 5-channel music through the BD player, and it's clear that my next tweak will be a switch to multiple subs, to even out the bass response.

David

I'm interested in the process. You say that the rep "unlocked" the software in your Denon. What model do you have? How does this unlocking work? Is this available for all Denon receivers with the Audessey component?

Any unit that has Audessey comes enabled for the user to do a level one calibration. A cheap calibration microphone usually comes with the unit. A leveltwo calibration requires a special license from Audessey. It flows to a specific unit and is keyed to that unit`s serial number. It can be used an unlimited number of times with that specific unit but with no other unit. the license costs $150 and the dealer makes no profit, the $150goes toAudessey. A level two calibration uses a special much more expensive calibration microphone. It can not be done without the better microphone. Audessy sells the microphone kit for something like $400, I don`t remember exactly, I bought mine long ago.

I'm interested in the process. You say that the rep "unlocked" the software in your Denon. What model do you have? How does this unlocking work? Is this available for all Denon receivers with the Audessey component?There is no "unlocking." The Pro software requires a key to communicate with a specific AVR or processor.

I'm interested in the process. You say that the rep "unlocked" the software in your Denon. What model do you have? How does this unlocking work? Is this available for all Denon receivers with the Audessey component?


Hi Mike,
The hardest part of the process is finding somebody in your area who will do the calibration. I have the Denon AVP processor, whose software I just updated in anticipation of the calibration. After hearing the results, I would never have another processor without room correction software.

David

Hi Mike,
The hardest part of the process is finding somebody in your area who will do the calibration. I have the Denon AVP processor, whose software I just updated in anticipation of the calibration. After hearing the results, I would never have another processor without room correction software.

David

Many here have had such for many years! Welcome to the club. The room is the area to spend the dough and room correction software is an important adjunct.

After hearing the results, I would never have another processor without room correction software.

I agree with the sentiment, rather than the literal notion.

I believe that room correction, and treatment, are mandatory components of any high end install. I dont, however, feel that its necessary to have a processor that includes correction. There are other, and in my opinion superior, options available. These, admittedly more expensive, options are fairly well represented on this forum.

My own experience with Audyssey has been less satisfactory than your own.

How is a professional audessey calibration different than hiring a professional with his/her own expensive microphone, measuring equipment, and test tones?

With a competent professional, won't you get similar results?

I believe that room correction, and treatment, are a key component of any high end install. I disagree with the notion that its necessary to have a processor that includes correction. There are other, and in my opinion superior, options available. These options are fairly well represented on this forum.
.

Yes, I was very intrigued by some of the other options. I tried to research the Trinnov units, but there are NO dealers in my area. I started to look into the Dolby Lake processor, but hey had stopped production, and in any case the lack of HDMI connectivity made that moot. I also completely agree that room treatment is also mandatory. Unfortunately for me, I have an all-MBL system, and treatment can be tricky. MBL needs a live room with diffusion, rather than too much absrption, and like evrything else, there must be compromises. I would heartily agree that if other room correction devides wrere available and affordable (ie. forget the Behold equipment) I would also be very interested in those.

How is a professional audessey calibration different than hiring a professional with his/her own expensive microphone, measuring equipment, and test tones?

With a competent professional, won't you get similar results?

it is a calibration by a professional with his/her own expensive microphone, measuring equipment, and test tones and using the calibration software that the denon opens up with the software key.

There is no "unlocking." The Pro software requires a key to communicate with a specific AVR or processor.

Hello, Taxi for Captain Pedantic.:)

How is a professional audessey calibration different than hiring a professional with his/her own expensive microphone, measuring equipment, and test tones?

With a competent professional, won't you get similar results?

Well, you need a room correction system in your system somewhere like Audyssey, there are some others out there that are quite advanced as well.

I have also had exceptional results with Audyssey PRO, and highly recommend it. And I absolutely love Dynamic EQ for movies.

Well, you need a room correction system in your system somewhere like Audyssey, there are some others out there that are quite advanced as well.

I have also had exceptional results with Audyssey PRO, and highly recommend it. And I absolutely love Dynamic EQ for movies.

Are you saying you must have a software like Audessey or MACC to conduct room correction?

I was thinking any professional can perform room correction as long as he has a test tone generator and other required equipment such as a microphone.

Sorry if I am being really ignorant here.

Yes, I was very intrigued by some of the other options. I tried to research the Trinnov units, but there are NO dealers in my area. I started to look into the Dolby Lake processor, but hey had stopped production, and in any case the lack of HDMI connectivity made that moot. I also completely agree that room treatment is also mandatory. Unfortunately for me, I have an all-MBL system, and treatment can be tricky. MBL needs a live room with diffusion, rather than too much absrption, and like evrything else, there must be compromises. I would heartily agree that if other room correction devides wrere available and affordable (ie. forget the Behold equipment) I would also be very interested in those.Have you considered the Neptune EQ?

One can measure a room if one has the right equipment. Correcting the errors is quite another matter. Room treatments and electronic corrrection devices (like those contained in audessey processors) are needed.

Hello, Taxi for Captain Pedantic.:)I have a season's pass.

Are you saying you must have a software like Audessey or MACC to conduct room correction?

I was thinking any professional can perform room correction as long as he has a test tone generator and other required equipment such as a microphone.

Sorry if I am being really ignorant here.Well, even a professional needs tools to implement the corrections he deems necessary. These fall into two categories. Physical treatments for absorbtion and diffusion can be placed strategically in the room but may be bulky and contravene WAF. Electronic corrections embodied in the user's own equipment (like Audyssey and some other DSP devices) or stand-alone equalizers of varying capability. Just doing the measurements and writing a prescription doesn't effect a cure.

Are you saying you must have a software like Audessey or MACC to conduct room correction?

I was thinking any professional can perform room correction as long as he has a test tone generator and other required equipment such as a microphone.

Sorry if I am being really ignorant here.

How will he apply any correction, without a room correction unit or software?

Without a unit such as you describe, or a standalone alternative, that provides some extensive EQ options, all that will be done is the levels, distances, sub woofer phase etc. Thats a long way short of room correction.

There's also the subject of treatments too, which are essentially a sub-set of room correction.

Have you considered the Neptune EQ?

No, but it seems interesting. Unfortunately, there are no Chicago-area dealers. Have you heard it in action?
I wish that the correction could be in the digital domain, rather than buying another 6 pairs of cables.

David

How will he apply any correction, without a room correction unit or software?

Without a unit such as you describe, or a standalone alternative, that provides some extensive EQ options, all that will be done is the levels, distances, sub woofer phase etc. Thats a long way short of room correction.

There's also the subject of treatments too, which are essentially a sub-set of room correction.

well, I was thinking all Audessey did was to shift levels, phases, and distances anyway. Since these adjustments are visible in most processors' user menus, I was thinking that anyone with the correct equipment can adjust them accordingly.

What I am learning is Audessey does some behind the curtain adjustments that are not accessible via the processor's user interface. Or at least that's how I am interpreting the comments I read.

"There is no "unlocking"...requires a key..."

hmmm :)

well, I was thinking all Audessey did was to shift levels, phases, and distances anyway. Since these adjustments are visible in most processors' user menus, I was thinking that anyone with the correct equipment can adjust them accordingly.

Thats where the issue is. Room correction is far more than that.

Room correction, put simply, attempts to remove the negative effect, on a signal, of the listening environment.

Heres a simplified version....A typical correction system, when run, will normally emit a series of tones and/or noise bursts. The processor will monitor the time taken for the signal to return, and this gives the speaker distance. It will monitor the amplitude and from this it will set the levels.

It will also emit sweeps or noise bursts and measure the frequency response obtained via a calibrated, or profiled, microphone at a given listening position, or positions. This response will have errors induced by your speakers inherent inadequacies, and the interaction of your room. There will be all manner of highs and lows at any number of frequencies. The DSP will then configure and program a series of filters in order to smooth out the response curve. All his will be done on a "per speaker" basis, so Im sure you can see it can be a pretty big deal. Scores of bands will have independent values set for parameter such as Filter Type,Frequency, Bandwidth and Gain (+ve or -ve). There can be any number of other parameters involved too.

The results of a good, accurate, room correction can be absolutely staggering. Imaging and soundstage is massively improved. Panning is super smooth. Localization is pin sharp, when appropriate. Detail can be increased tremendously etc etc With a good result, cycling the correction on and off will be a total revelation for any listener you care to demo to.

A well corrected room is one of the cornerstones of any high end HT. I cant remember the last genuine high end install that did not give major consideration to this vital area.

Yes, I was very intrigued by some of the other options. I tried to research the Trinnov units, but there are NO dealers in my area. I started to look into the Dolby Lake processor, but hey had stopped production, and in any case the lack of HDMI connectivity made that moot.

Just as FYI, the new AP20 from DDE (the old DTS Cinema Surround company) that was shown at CEDIA sports full HDMI/ Blu-Ray decoding. It is a 16 channel digital box with 'Dirac Live' room optimization.

_________________
Carl Huff

No, but it seems interesting. Unfortunately, there are no Chicago-area dealers. Have you heard it in action? http://stereophile.com/musicintheround/music_in_the_round_37/index1.html

Thats where the issue is. Room correction is far more than that.

Room correction, put simply, attempts to remove the negative effect, on a signal, of the listening environment.

Heres a simplified version....A typical correction system, when run, will normally emit a series of tones and/or noise bursts. The processor will monitor the time taken for the signal to return, and this gives the speaker distance. It will monitor the amplitude and from this it will set the levels.

It will also emit sweeps or noise bursts and measure the frequency response obtained via a calibrated, or profiled, microphone at a given listening position, or positions. This response will have errors induced by your speakers inherent inadequacies, and the interaction of your room. There will be all manner of highs and lows at any number of frequencies. The DSP will then configure and program a series of filters in order to smooth out the response curve. All his will be done on a "per speaker" basis, so Im sure you can see it can be a pretty big deal. Scores of bands will have independent values set for parameter such as Filter Type,Frequency, Bandwidth and Gain (+ve or -ve) values set. There can be any number of other parameters involved too.

The results of a good, accurate, room correction can be absolutely staggering. Imaging and soundstage is massively improved. Panning is super smooth. Localization is pin sharp, when appropriate. Detail can be increased tremendously etc etc With a good result, cycling the correction on and off will be a total revelation for any listener you care to demo to.

A well corrected room is one of the cornerstones of any high end HT. I cant remember the last genuine high end install that did not give major consideration to this vital area.

Can Audessey be used in tandem with DEQX? Or will they interfere with eachother?

Also, are there any stand alone room correction units for people who own processors without Audessey-like correction software?

I do realize that I literally hijacked this thread, so I will stop here before I make the OP really mad!

Can Audessey be used in tandem with DEQX? Or will they interfere with eachother?

Also, are there any stand alone room correction units for people who own processors without Audessey-like correction software?

I do realize that I literally hijacked this thread, so I will stop here before I make the OP really mad!

Hi,
They happen to be very good questions, and I'd also like to know the answers. Do you currently use a DEQX, since that is also something that has intrigued me.

David

Just as FYI, the new AP20 from DDE (the old DTS Cinema Surround company) that was shown at CEDIA sports full HDMI/ Blu-Ray decoding. It is a 16 channel digital box with 'Dirac Live' room optimization.

_________________
Carl Huff

Sounds interesting! Anyone got a link or other info?

Can Audessey be used in tandem with DEQX? Or will they interfere with eachother?


I use both a DEQX and an outboard Audyssey Pro balanced unit. I also use a QSC -DSP30 on my subwoofer channels.

The DEQX and Audyssey are highly complementary. The DEQX is terrific as a digital crossover. You can get each individual driver aligned, crossover slopes aligned, phase and group delay corrected, etc. etc. The DEQX is not all that good a room correction tool. It's got a pretty flexible parametric EQ, but it's global and can't be set separately for each channel.

The Audyssey does no driver correction or individual driver alignment. It's a great multichannel parametric equalizer with enough "smarts", given an experienced (or persistent) installer, to get get to a terrific set of filters for each channel.

In practice you first "optimize" the speakers via the DEQX, than "optimize" the speakers for the room via the Audyssey. Put differently, think of the DEQX as a crossover and the Audyssey as an equalizer.

"The Audyssey does no driver correction or individual driver alignment."

Since it corrects, at least partially, time domain effects, I think it's fair to say that it does, at least partially.

http://stereophile.com/musicintheround/music_in_the_round_37/index1.html

I guess that you have. :)

Still, with no local dealer, it would be a crapshoot for me. Also, I've gotten away from buying gear from one-trick-pony companies.

David

The Audyssey does no driver correction or individual driver alignment. It's a great multichannel parametric equalizer with enough "smarts", given an experienced (or persistent) installer, to get get to a terrific set of filters for each channel.

Small point but Audyssey is NOT a parametric equalizer. It actually corrects in the time domain which affects frequency response but does not actually do it's calculation in the frequency domain. Parametirc EQ works in the frequency domain only and allows adjustment of the Q, Center Frequency and Amplitude. Traditional EQ (parametric or otherwise) is a reasonably acceptable approach for subs but there are much better approaches (like Audyssey and Tact) for both subs and those frequencies above the sub.

Small point but Audyssey is NOT a parametric equalizer. It actually corrects in the time domain which affects frequency response but does not actually do it's calculation in the frequency domain

Understood. I was simplifying the "analogy" for the original posters that were pretty new to the room correction experience curve.

So any unit that has Audyssey can do a "level 2 callibration" when a key is purchased?

So any unit that has Audessey can do a "level 2 callibration" when a key is purchased?Sorry. It must be (1) Audyssey MultEQ XT level and (2) AudysseyPro-compatible. See listings at the Audyssey website.

David I use the Audessy pro component and as great as it is I do think it affects the bass. After the calibration, you might want to manually adjust the bass a bit to your liking. Numbers are numbers and hearing is hearing. Two subs would be a benefit and 4 subs would rock the house.....:D

Larry

David I use the Audessy pro component and as great as it is I do think it affects the bass. After the calibration, you might want to manually adjust the bass a bit to your liking. Numbers are numbers and hearing is hearing. Two subs would be a benefit and 4 subs would rock the house.....:D

Larry

Hi Larry,
Your comment is much appreciated. After living with the calibration for a couple of days, the bass is uneven in my room. I have one sub in the corner. As you say, the next project will be to get 2 or 3 more subs to even out the bass response in the room. What subs do you use?

David

Vmps ribbon or Triad subs. (Off topic).....might need to check out the 3d pj showing.....Larry

http://www.audyssey.com/hometheater/subeq.html This could be a fun addtition to your gear....

also read from the Audyssey blog: http://www.audyssey.com/blog/

I think this makes alot of sense for me at least. I like clean bass not boomy bass, loud is not the point with music, I like great imaging and soundstage with depth with my speakers regardless of what I listen to.

After using the multi eq pro and if I don't like what I am listening to then adjustments will be made. Very few people even know what reference listening is and sometimes do not prefer it. It does take getting use to like taking your pj and making it look like film. People don't get it but also preferences/wants of people are different.

I also don't like to be told what the music I like should sound like. I go to enough "live" events to know what a jazz bass line should sound like. That is why I love my VMPS speakers since I can "tune" them to my room and tastes......

This is also an interesting theory: http://www.audyssey.com/technology/dsx.html

Plus in my opinion even with eq/room correction hardware and software the room does matter, the correction can only do so much.

I have been away from this for awhile and it seems the fire is starting to burn again:D

Larry

Is audyssey better than a standalone eq?

Is audyssey better than a standalone eq?You need to be more specific in your question. Which Audyssey implementation? Which standalone?

David I use the Audessy pro component and as great as it is I do think it affects the bass. After the calibration, you might want to manually adjust the bass a bit to your liking. Numbers are numbers and hearing is hearing. Two subs would be a benefit and 4 subs would rock the house.....:D

Larry

Isn't more than 2 subs an overkill? Especially if you have full towers that can already go fairly low

"the bass is uneven in my room. I have one sub in the corner."

Corner placement gives highest output but excites all modes maximally and gives uneven response both in freq and position.

Google for Harman white paper on subwoofers.

Isn't more than 2 subs an overkill? Especially if you have full towers that can already go fairly low
Nope...not at all. The purpose of multiple subs is NOT to increase SPL in the room. Multiple subs are used to create consistent seat to seat low frequency response. Full range towers can actually create problems in the low frequencies. It is very likely the location of those towers required to create a good soundfield is exactly the wrong location for low frequency drivers (subs) to achieve smooth bass response at the seating locations.

I purchased the Pro Mic kit about 1.5 years ago and love it makes a huge difference....Actually mic'ing my room right now after some changes.

Nope...not at all. The purpose of multiple subs is NOT to increase SPL in the room. Multiple subs are used to create consistent seat to seat low frequency response. Full range towers can actually create problems in the low frequencies. It is very likely the location of those towers required to create a good soundfield is exactly the wrong location for low frequency drivers (subs) to achieve smooth bass response at the seating locations.

In that case, how many subs do you recommend for a medium sized room?

I purchased the Pro Mic kit about 1.5 years ago and love it makes a huge difference....Actually mic'ing my room right now after some changes.
Can private people purchase the kit (I assume this is the Audessey kit), and if so, how much does it cost?

Thnx

In that case, how many subs do you recommend for a medium sized room?
You might want to google Harman's white papers on subwoofers, as Noah suggested.

Can private people purchase the kit (I assume this is the Audessey kit), and if so, how much does it cost?

ThnxAll described and discussed on the "official Audyssey" thread.

In that case, how many subs do you recommend for a medium sized room?
Depending on the subs and the room ... four.

Depending on the subs and the room ... four.

Dennis,

How likely are we to have devices that can accept BD hi-rez audio and perform full room eq in a stand alone device that works in conjunction with the SSP?

The only device I am aware of is the AP20 from DDE mentioned earlier in this thread, though I haven't been able to find much information on the unit yet.

Sean

You need to be more specific in your question. Which Audyssey implementation? Which standalone?


I wasen't aware there where different implementations of audyessy. I'm not sure either which eq to compare to. I was assuming a standalone would be always better than a built in eq.

Dennis,

How likely are we to have devices that can accept BD hi-rez audio and perform full room eq in a stand alone device that works in conjunction with the SSP?

The only device I am aware of is the AP20 from DDE mentioned earlier in this thread, though I haven't been able to find much information on the unit yet.

Sean

Is this device widely available? Has anybody actually used it? It has what I consider to be very important, digital input and specifically digital output, to cut down on cables and conversions.

David

Is this device widely available? Has anybody actually used it? It has what I consider to be very important, digital input and specifically digital output, to cut down on cables and conversions.

David

Link to PDF:

http://www.datasatdigital.com/Support/Products/AP20/AP20_Datasheet_081309.pdf

I wasen't aware there where different implementations of audyessy. I'm not sure either which eq to compare to. There are several versions of Audyssey and, of course, there are several stand-alone EQs, including the Audyssey Sound Equalizer.

I was assuming a standalone would be always better than a built in eq.Well, one might so assume as the stand-alones might be more sophisticated. OTOH, so far, there are none available to the consumer that will take digital inputs, so they all encumber redundant A/D/A conversions.

There are several versions of Audyssey and, of course, there are several stand-alone EQs, including the Audyssey Sound Equalizer.

Well, one might so assume as the stand-alones might be more sophisticated. OTOH, so far, there are none available to the consumer that will take digital inputs, so they all encumber redundant A/D/A conversions.

Problem with stand alones is in my understanding you won't have all the bells and whistles such as Dynamic Volume and EQ.

Problem with stand alones is in my understanding you won't have all the bells and whistles such as Dynamic Volume and EQ.Sure, because they have no way of comparing volume levels with reference. OTOH, they will offer higher resolution equalization.

Is this device widely available?
The device is available. None the less, it does have some short comings. While it does support a large number of channels and a significant number of 1/3 octave (graphic type) EQ filters, it falls way, way too short on parametic EQs. Typically, very few 1/3 octave filters are required. Taming bass response and modal peaks requires parametric EQ with resolutions in the 1Hz to 2Hz range. If they'd give up some of that 1/3 octave space to parametric filters, splitters and ramps, they might have something.

Sure, because they have no way of comparing volume levels with reference. OTOH, they will offer higher resolution equalization.

Is there any real-life benefit of the higher resolution?

Is there any real-life benefit of the higher resolution?In the bass, yes. I can discern a difference between MultEQ XT and the Audyssey Sound Equalizer but I expect that may not be so if I used the MultEQ XT with a SubEQ.

But, of course, its value depends on your needs.Theoretically, a perfect room would evoke no equalization from the Audyssey.

In the bass, yes. I can discern a difference between MultEQ XT and the Audyssey Sound Equalizer but I expect that may not be so if I used the MultEQ XT with a SubEQ.

But, of course, its value depends on your needs.Theoretically, a perfect room would evoke no equalization from the Audyssey.

Kal,

in you opinion, if already using a MultEQ XT-enabled pre/pro, is the addition of a SubEQ worth the additional AD/DA steps? I wonder if this depends upon how bad you room is. Are the additional steps ever audible at sub frequencies?

Ash

Are the additional steps ever audible at sub frequencies?Nope.

I recently installed a low end Denon with the calibration mic. I put little, if no faith into the calibration software, and since I was there to do CRT work, and had the 'oh, can you install THIS?' type thing thrown at me, I was going to do a basic installation, but the customer wanted me to do the 'mic thing'. So I did.

Even with the basic calibration and the cheap $1.00 plastic mic and unbalanced cord, the difference before and after calibration was amazing. From the tones coming out of the speaker, it reminded me of the old Amcron TEF analyzer tones, which 15ish years ago was the most comprehensive room analysis available.

I'd love to hear what the pro calibration level does to a room, but I'm sold.

The Pro calibration does take things to a new level. I have yet to do a pro calibration that doesn't sound better than the standard Audyssey cal, regardless of the quality of the processor/receiver used.

If anyone in the Washington State area is interested in a pro calibration, PM me and we'll see what we can do!

Besides the bare bones size/distance/delay/bass/treble/sub adjustments available in most receivers and pre/pros, I've had four significant calibrations over the years. All have helped to varying degrees, but the first and the last were the more impressive.

The very first one was done on a stereo set up using a Soundcraftsmen AE2000 and SAM II microphone and the Soundcraftsmen test LP. There were a few room mods, such as adding a thicker carpet, putting some fabric on the walls, and moving furniture around. We also tweaked speaker placement a bit. At the end of it all, I couldn't imagine anything better.

The result of the EQ of the system was nothing short of amazing at the time, 20+ years ago, but it was a lot of work. We had to put plots on paper charts, move sliders around, then record their positions and results, send noise through the system, etc. It was loud, time consuming, and labor intensive, but it produced a great result. It was probably ahead of its time in the consumer market, since this was a time when EQ of a system was deemed an admission of inferiority. I still remember the gall of one Stereo Showcase employee telling me if I had a better system it wouldn't be necessary. They never got another penny of my business.

I've also had the semi-auto calibration of the Citation units and a couple of years ago picked up an Outlaw 990 with mic and auto set-up for a secondary system. The Citation results were so-so, while the Outlaw results were actually quite good and seemed to me to be equal in effect to consumer-level Audessey calibrations I've participated in. In either case, the Soundcraftsmen result was better, but much harder to come by and nearly impossible to do on a multichannel system.

The latest was the JBL Synthesis® calibration done by a JBL tech using the DACS system and the BSS Audio-based JBL SDEC units. Bearing in mind that the room was extensively treated, the JBL system was pretty expensive, and the calibration was both lengthy and costly, one would expect amazing results, and I was not disappointed. I can't weight these, so I'll just write that the room, the equipment, and the calibration are equally important in achieving the best result.

The cost of the whole Synthesis® thing was about 50x the cost of the old Soundcraftsmen-centered system, but of course there's not a commensurate overall improvement. Still, subjectively a 10x or 15x increase might be a reasonable claim, all things considered. If the pro Audessey calibration matches or exceeds the JBL Synthesis® results, then it would be a wise investment, especially in conjunction with a well-treated room.

In my understanding another disadvantage of using a stand-alone device is the introduction of an additional layer of DAC conversion to the process. I feel this can be quite undesirable especially for someone with a high-end pre-pro since his/her high-end DACs will not be fully taken advantage of.

The Pro calibration does take things to a new level. I have yet to do a pro calibration that doesn't sound better than the standard Audyssey cal, regardless of the quality of the processor/receiver used.
Professional calibration by a professional will trump automagic calibration any day of the week. Automagic calibration will trump no calibration.

I feel this can be quite undesirable especially for someone with a high-end pre-pro since his/her high-end DACs will not be fully taken advantage of.
Don't use cheap stand alone units. The debate over additional A/D/A conversion will go on forever. None-the-less, the improvement a high quality standalone unit when set up by a professional will win out over any imagined A/D/A bit twisting you can wave your arms at.

Professional calibration by a professional will trump automagic calibration any day of the week. Automagic calibration will trump no calibration.


I think you misinterpreted Kris. I think he was referring to Audyssey PRO, rather than just using the included microphone for a basic user-calibration. The basic functionality is the same, the calculations and adjustments are all handled by audyssey, but the software is located(and corrections calculated) on a PC rather than the included processing in the AVR, and is done to a matched professional microphone.

And I would agree with him as to the benefits of Audyssey PRO rather than the basic included-mic user-calibration. Basic Audyssey also makes a world of difference, but Audyssey PRO really finishes things off better in my experience.

In my understanding another disadvantage of using a stand-alone device is the introduction of an additional layer of DAC conversion to the process. I feel this can be quite undesirable especially for someone with a high-end pre-pro since his/her high-end DACs will not be fully taken advantage of.

This is my main concern as you are surely negating the benefits of the expensive DACs in your SSP.

Given that you have paid a lot of money for your SSP and it's DACs, is there any benefit to having the high end DACs in the first place, if you intend to use a pro stand alone EQ?

From what I have read it seems the benefits that the EQ adds are far more important to the sound in most rooms, than just the unfiltered DACS in the SSP.

Don't use cheap stand alone units. The debate over additional A/D/A conversion will go on forever. None-the-less, the improvement a high quality standalone unit when set up by a professional will win out over any imagined A/D/A bit twisting you can wave your arms at.

Agreed. I was not trying to imply that someone with a pre-pro with uber-expensive DACs and no room correction should forsake a stand-alone room correction unit.

I was rather debating the benefits of buying a high-end pre-pro with no room correction in the first place. What is the use of paying more for the superior conversion when you will be restricted to the conversion abilities in the stand-alone unit? Why not a get a unit with room correction in the first place?

This is my main concern as you are surely negating the benefits of the expensive DACs in your SSP.

Given that you have paid a lot of money for your SSP and it's DACs, is there any benefit to having the high end DACs in the first place, if you intend to use a pro stand alone EQ?

From what I have read it seems the benefits that the EQ adds are far more important to the sound in most rooms, than just the unfiltered DACS in the SSP.

I couldn't have said it better.

This is my main concern as you are surely negating the benefits of the expensive DACs in your SSP.

Given that you have paid a lot of money for your SSP and it's DACs, is there any benefit to having the high end DACs in the first place, if you intend to use a pro stand alone EQ?

From what I have read it seems the benefits that the EQ adds are far more important to the sound in most rooms, than just the unfiltered DACS in the SSP.

While at a theoretical level I buy into what you say, it appears from the experience of others that the benefits of an external unit - if it is limited to the lower level frequencies typical of a sub - outweigh any negative impact of the required AD/DA conversion.

This is the conclusion I arrive at (and I guess I am about to make a purchasing decision on that premise) based upon the positive reviews I read and Kal's response earlier that he believes the additional AD/DA steps are themselves inaudible.

"it appears from the experience of others that the benefits of an external unit - if it is limited to the lower level frequencies typical of a sub - outweigh any negative impact of the required AD/DA conversion."

I believe they were referring to full range use as well

"it appears from the experience of others that the benefits of an external unit - if it is limited to the lower level frequencies typical of a sub - outweigh any negative impact of the required AD/DA conversion."

I believe they were referring to full range use as well

I guess I was rationalizing that the biggest benefits are likely to be in the frequencies where the impacts of the AD/DA conversion are least audible.

It may be true of full range but there appears to be less evidence to support that. It certainly seems crazy to pay for really good DACs in a pre/pro only to completely undermine them by doing full range AD/DA in a much cheaper outboard unit further down the chain.

While at a theoretical level I buy into what you say, it appears from the experience of others that the benefits of an external unit - if it is limited to the lower level frequencies typical of a sub - outweigh any negative impact of the required AD/DA conversion.


I don't believe the poster disputed that in the first place.

Professional calibration by a professional will trump automagic calibration any day of the week. Automagic calibration will trump no calibration.


Don't use cheap stand alone units. The debate over additional A/D/A conversion will go on forever. None-the-less, the improvement a high quality standalone unit when set up by a professional will win out over any imagined A/D/A bit twisting you can wave your arms at.

Dennis, in your opinion does the PEQ functionality offered by the new Classe SSP 800 offer enough flexibility to get most of the benefits of a professional calibration? (As best I can tell, you get five bands of PEQ per channel, with very high resolution per filter.)

Dennis, in your opinion does the PEQ functionality offered by the new Classe SSP 800 offer enough flexibility to get most of the benefits of a professional calibration? (As best I can tell, you get five bands of PEQ per channel, with very high resolution per filter.)

I heard the Classe playing "Dark Knight" and it sounded great. I don't really know the movie, so the next step is to get the Blu-ray disc and listen to it on my system. The SSP 800 is a very good unit. Too bad they didn't license one of the room correction formats.

David

I think you misinterpreted Kris. I think he was referring to Audyssey PRO, rather than just using the included microphone for a basic user-calibration. The basic functionality is the same, the calculations and adjustments are all handled by audyssey, but the software is located(and corrections calculated) on a PC rather than the included processing in the AVR, and is done to a matched professional microphone.

And I would agree with him as to the benefits of Audyssey PRO rather than the basic included-mic user-calibration. Basic Audyssey also makes a world of difference, but Audyssey PRO really finishes things off better in my experience.

Chris,

I think you may be misinterpreting Dennis. He is absolutely 100% correct. Calibration done by a professional using high resolution PEQ's along with proper positioning of speakers, layout of the room and treatment...heck just using the PEQ's...will likely yield an even flatter response than Audyssey Pro is capable of. I for one know for a fact as I have corrected using both methods and the PEQ method was unbelievably flat in the low end; much more than Audyssey. This yielded a very smooth sounding bass response. Audyssey is very good for what it is, but if you REALLY want the most out of a system, a professional manual calibration is in order. However, I will say that it usually takes days (if the room is not properly designed), not hours, to do this properly.

System calibration hierarchy.

All of these positionings are of course assuming moderate physical acoustic control of the room.

1. Pro Calibration using all the various tools at their disposal. this may include items from #2 as well as other outboard processors such as a lake, high res PEQ's and other DSP boxes.
2. Pro Calibration using a pro outboard version of one of the many room correction systems.
3. PRO calibration on that receiver should it be available.
4. Room Correction on a higher end receiver
5. Basic EQ on a receiver

THe issues of additional D/A and A/D can in many cases be nothing more than a perception issue. if the tools are needed and you cannot stay in the D domain, then the benefit is worth it. also there is a perception that this processor or that processor have the greatest D/A chips there are. the reality is that many of the pro units have chips (and software) in them that allow quality that reaches far into the inaudible range.

I think you pretty much nailed it there Dizz.

I am confused now. Earlier I asked a question whether a professional could get better results with his/her own tools without Audessy Pro (or a competing solution). The response was "no" because what Audessy did was too sophisticated for any human to replicate.

Now I am reading you can get better results with bands if you have someone who knows what s/he is doing.

What am I missing here?

In the bass, yes. I can discern a difference between MultEQ XT and the Audyssey Sound Equalizer but I expect that may not be so if I used the MultEQ XT with a SubEQ.

But, of course, its value depends on your needs.Theoretically, a perfect room would evoke no equalization from the Audyssey.

Kal;
I know Audyssey is a "room correction" software, so my below Q is for learning.

If outside, can I say that is like the "perfect room" because no boundaries to cause reflections (except the "floor"/dirt/grass), so if you ran Audyssey outside it would calibrate your speakers for distance/level but should apply no or very little correction??
(recently I'm into doing Backyard Home Theater (http://backyardtheater.com/forums/index.php?topic=4456.0) hence this is on my mind)

Kal;
I know Audyssey is a "room correction" software, so my below Q is for learning.

If outside, can I say that is like the "perfect room" because no boundaries to cause reflections (except the "floor"/dirt/grass), so if you ran Audyssey outside it would calibrate your speakers for distance/level but should apply no or very little correction??
(recently I'm into doing Backyard Home Theater (http://backyardtheater.com/forums/index.php?topic=4456.0) hence this is on my mind)

an anechoic chamber seeks to replicate a true open field environment. So yes, open field is optimal. no room to interact with.

If outside, can I say that is like the "perfect room" because no boundaries to cause reflections (except the "floor"/dirt/grass), so if you ran Audyssey outside it would calibrate your speakers for distance/level but should apply no or very little correction??
(recently I'm into doing Backyard Home Theater (http://backyardtheater.com/forums/index.php?topic=4456.0) hence this is on my mind)

It would still correct for inaccuracies in the frequency response of your speakers.

I am confused now. Earlier I asked a question whether a professional could get better results with his/her own tools without Audessy Pro (or a competing solution). The response was "no" because what Audessy did was too sophisticated for any human to replicate.

Now I am reading you can get better results with bands if you have someone who knows what s/he is doing.

What am I missing here?Well, Audyssey is the product of humans, so there is no reason to believe that a sophisticated, trained professional with a wide array of tools cannot do as well or better. Time and cost (as well as need) are also relevant parameters.

It would still correct for inaccuracies in the frequency response of your speakers.

So while this showed both my room "corrections" and speaker "corrections" together if done outside I'd get a good picture of mostly just my speaker...
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_FqTNmgNQHz8/SX_oFDqa_nI/AAAAAAAAD3A/UwzCQhbd0iw/s800/IMG_1187.JPG

I'll have to try that next spring....thx

I am confused now. Earlier I asked a question whether a professional could get better results with his/her own tools without Audessy Pro (or a competing solution). The response was "no" because what Audessy did was too sophisticated for any human to replicate.

Now I am reading you can get better results with bands if you have someone who knows what s/he is doing.

What am I missing here?

using the non pro software, a pro COULD get better results because they have better knowledge overall.

a good pro could possible squeak nomimal improvements because maybe they have a better mic to do the internal cal with.

What the pro brings is perhaps better tools to measure (independant of the reciever) the end result and make changes to speaker position, shuffling any room treatments, and doing very simple test changes.

As an example, if i notice some anomaly, i ask you "do you have two blankets/quilts we can grab for a few minutes?" we then tack them up on the back wall and nullify some slap off the back wall that the room correction software was trying to fix with electronic trickery. then you go to bed bath and beyond with some simple guidance to buy some fabric drapes and liners to hang in the back of the room. (simplest acoustic treatments there are) and as a result, now the room correction software is not trying to fix something that was fixed for about 100$ (since the wife will want the nicer curtains and hardware :-) ). and this can result in much better sound.

in short, the pro brings experience to the puzzle.


As an analogy... while it is not talking about room correction software, i feel it is relevant.

A few years back i visited a local members house. he has an outstanding system. he also had a bunch of room treatments employed.

well we listened for a while, then i pulled out my pro measuring rig. in listening, i thought i heard somethiing that was a little odd. the measurement rig confimed it. so we played around moving the sound panels a bit and after some trial and error, we managed to make a 6dB hump go away. as it happened, the owner did not like things as flat as we made it, so he halved the corrections we made and it was how he liked it.

So in theory, a pro will come in, will look at the room, listen some, move some stuff around, measure, move some stuff some more, listen some more and when he has the room as good as he feels it can be like that... THEN you plug in the mic and do that calibration.

you would be surprised at what a person with the right tools and the right knowledge can do with no additional gear. And every improvement we can make in the space, means less fiddling we have to do with thhe sound.

i can see i did not quite understand what the OP asked... a pro with a full arsenal of tools would like include a room correction system. as all the tools do different things.

Which tools are needed... depends on the room and the setup.

my response above was based on hiring a pro but not paying for the pro version of audyssey or the like

Thanks to all contributors. Very educational thread!

Sean

And for the record i am not an acoustical pro.

a good pro could possible squeak nomimal improvements because maybe they have a better mic to do the internal cal with. Not possible as the internal mic correction is fixed in almost all cases. (Some Denons are exceptions.)

in short, the pro brings experience to the puzzle.Agreed.

i was of the impression that it is a little plastic cheapie that plugs in via a mini connector.

My only point was that if there was the ability to plug in somethiing else... a pro might have it, and there MIGHT be a tiny improvement over that.


But the experience and knowledge they bring to the table "CAN BE" worth its weight.

Unfortunately in the world of HT, both installers and "tweakers" are completely and utterly hit and miss. from isf to others, there is very little in the way of meaningful industry certification that covers both knowledge and practical implementation. so some guy with lots of "certifications" might be useless and a guy with none could be invaluable.

So reputation is everything.

i was of the impression that it is a little plastic cheapie that plugs in via a mini connector.

My only point was that if there was the ability to plug in somethiing else... a pro might have it, and there MIGHT be a tiny improvement over that.In principle, yes. However, the vast majority of AVRs/prepros with Audyssey built-in also have the mic correction curve built-in. So, plugging in a superior mic would result in it being subjected to the wrong correction curve and whether this would constitute an improvement is unlikely.

That said, one of the major advantages of the AudysseyPro kit is the effective use of a much better calibrated microphone.

ah gotcha. makes sense.

The Pro calibration does take things to a new level. I have yet to do a pro calibration that doesn't sound better than the standard Audyssey cal, regardless of the quality of the processor/receiver used.

If anyone in the Washington State area is interested in a pro calibration, PM me and we'll see what we can do!

Just to provide another perspective here, I owned the stand-alone Audyssey Pro unit and the mic kit about a year ago, and to these ears Audyessy broke as much as it fixed. Too much upper bass, not enough lower bass, and too much upper midrange. Ive gotten much better results by measuring my room with REW and the manual PEQ in my Classe SSP-800 prepro than I was ever able to with Audyssey. I even worked directly with Chris from Audyssey Labs in attempt to correct the issues I heard with Audyssey engaged, to no avail.

I think that the new ability to adjust the target curve in Audyssey Pro would have helped, but I'm not certain.

As it happened, the owner did not like things as flat as we made it, so he halved the corrections we made and it was how he liked it.



This seemigly simple comment explains the main drawback to auto correction for me. There needs to be some sort of feedback loop that would allow the end-user to tweak the end end result to account for subjective preference. Even Audyssey Pro, which lets you set the target curve, would require the calibrator to approximate a curve that represents a halving of the corrections as you did.

If Audyessy had a user-controlled function that allowed for a High / Medium / Low level of correction, separate for Bass, Mids, and Treble, they would have something closer to what I would find useful.

This seemigly simple comment explains the main drawback to auto correction for me. There needs to be some sort of feedback loop that can would allow the end-user to tweak the end end result to account for subjective preference. Even Audyssey Pro, which lets you set the target curve, would require the calibrator to approximate a curve that represents a halving of the corrections as you did.

If Audyessy had a user-controlled function that allowed for a High / Medium / Low level of correction, separate for Bass, Mids, and Treble, they would have something closer to what I would find useful.Whatever happened to the use of tone controls for adding the flavoring?

Whatever happened to the use of tone controls for adding the flavoring?

Too broad.

But there is something more at play here I think. I'm not convinced that what Audyssey did was actually more accurate than the "uncorrected" system sound. At least not in my system.

Just to provide another perspective here, I owned the stand-alone Audyssey Pro unit and the mic kit about a year ago, and to these ears Audyessy broke as much as it fixed. Too much upper bass, not enough lower bass, and too much upper midrange. Ive gotten much better results by measuring my room with REW and the manual PEQ in my Classe SSP-800 prepro than I was ever able to with Audyssey. I even worked directly with Chris from Audyssey Labs in attempt to correct the issues I heard with Audyssey engaged, to no avail.

I think that the new ability to adjust the target curve in Audyssey Pro would have helped, but I'm not certain.

I am really surprised to hear this observation. Isn't Classe's PEQ tecnically inferior to Audyssey's implementation?

There needs to be some sort of feedback loop that can would allow the end-user to tweak the end end result to account for subjective preference.
à la TacT?

This seemigly simple comment explains the main drawback to auto correction for me. There needs to be some sort of feedback loop that can would allow the end-user to tweak the end end result to account for subjective preference. Even Audyssey Pro, which lets you set the target curve, would require the calibrator to approximate a curve that represents a halving of the corrections as you did.

If Audyessy had a user-controlled function that allowed for a High / Medium / Low level of correction, separate for Bass, Mids, and Treble, they would have something closer to what I would find useful.

well, the i wish game can go on forever.

:D

the reality is that the more adjustment you want, the more you need a pro involved with various tools at your disposal.

i would guess that for 99% of the denon audience, they place the mic, hit auto and marvel at how much better it sounds. and then maybe bump the bass a bit. (since the reality is that almost nobody likes things accurate)

i would guess that for 99% of the denon audience, they place the mic, hit auto and marvel at how much better it sounds. and then maybe bump the bass a bit. (since the reality is that almost nobody likes things accurate)

I wanted to be in that 99%, but alas I had to take matters into my own hands, and ended up going manual.

I am really surprised to hear this observation. Isn't Classe's PEQ tecnically inferior to Audyssey's implementation?

Yes, Audyssey's filters are more precise than what is offered in the Classe, but in my case, and like Dizzman described during one of his calibration sessions, I like about half as much correction as is called for. I would love to have Audyessy's filter precision with the flexibility of a manual EQ. Audyssey is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't work for me in its current form.

I had to take matters into my own hands, and ended up going manual.

Sound like a line from Deuce Bigalow

Yes, Audyssey's filters are more precise than what is offered in the Classe, but in my case, and like Dizzman described during one of his calibration sessions, I like about half as much correction as is called for. I would love to have Audyessy's filter precision with the flexibility of a manual EQ. Audyssey is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't work for me in its current form.
I think Paul Barton's NAD house curve makes a marked improvement in the results with Audyssey.NAD is the only product line with this curve. Worth a listen if you have only heard the standard Audyssey curves. Thats pretty much all we install. I found Dynamic EQ to improve lower volume listening too.
I am going to try one of the new NAD master series M15HD processors in an upcoming installation.
Perhaps on super high end systems for dedicated spaces,Audyssey may not be up the best hand crafted room correction,but on anything less than that,I might say you HAVE to use Audyssey. Jaw dropping improvements is the best description of the results. A nice looking room without treatment can achieve close to reference results with Audyssey.IMHO

Sound like a line from Deuce Bigalow

:eek: :D

I think Paul Barton's NAD house curve makes a marked improvement in the results with Audyssey.NAD is the only product line with this curve. Worth a listen if you have only heard the standard Audyssey curves. Thats pretty much all we install. I found Dynamic EQ to improve lower volume listening too.
I am going to try one of the new NAD master series M15HD processors in an upcoming installation.
Perhaps on super high end systems for dedicated spaces,Audyssey may not be up the best hand crafted room correction,but on anything less than that,I might say you HAVE to use Audyssey. Jaw dropping improvements is the best description of the results. A nice looking room without treatment can achieve close to reference results with Audyssey.IMHO

I have heard many positive testimonials of Audyssey, both before and after I owned the stand-alone unit. I don't know what was different with my situation, but I can assure you that I got nothing near "reference results". Life certainly would have bee a lot easier if I had.

I have heard many positive testimonials of Audyssey, both before and after I owned the stand-alone unit. I don't know what was different with my situation, but I can assure you that I got nothing near "reference results". Life certainly would have bee a lot easier if I had.

We have installed 3 of the stand alone Audyssey processors. Although quite good especially in bass correction,subjectively I think we are getting better results with the latest "HD" versions of NAD/Audyssey preamps and receivers.
The improvements seem to be upgraded Digital to Analog converters along with Dynamic EQ, Dynamic Volume and the previously mentioned "NAD" house curve .

Not trying to sell NAD here,but with the results we are getting I am having a tough time finding a reason to try anything else.Admittedly they are more expensive than most products with Audyssey,but seem worth it.

The Master Series M15HD will probably provide the highest level of performance for a product with integrated Audyssey.

"Even Audyssey Pro, which lets you set the target curve, would require the calibrator to approximate a curve that represents a halving of the corrections as you did.

If Audyessy had a user-controlled function that allowed for a High / Medium / Low level of correction, separate for Bass, Mids, and Treble, they would have something closer to what I would find useful."

Seems to me w/the user settable target curve there's nothing to be complaining about.

Unfortunately in the world of HT, both installers and "tweakers" are completely and utterly hit and miss. from isf to others, there is very little in the way of meaningful industry certification that covers both knowledge and practical implementation. so some guy with lots of "certifications" might be useless and a guy with none could be invaluable.

So reputation is everything.

Ah, Dizzman,

Let me enlighten you to the Home Acoustics Alliance (HAA) Level II Guru! :D

www.homeacoustics.net

THIS certification class is like non-other. You WILL learn how to properly calibrate a home theater...whether you like it or not! Trust me on this. This class is worth its weight in gold, and so few are. Not to mention the plethora and uncountable years of experience of its members who are available anytime I have a question that delves deep into the science of acoustics. Many of the individuals in this group will utterly astound you with their knowledge and abilities.

"Even Audyssey Pro, which lets you set the target curve, would require the calibrator to approximate a curve that represents a halving of the corrections as you did.

If Audyessy had a user-controlled function that allowed for a High / Medium / Low level of correction, separate for Bass, Mids, and Treble, they would have something closer to what I would find useful."

Seems to me w/the user settable target curve there's nothing to be complaining about.

I haven't used the Pro unit since they implemented the ability to set the target curve, but I believe it only shows you a very low resolution "before" graph, which is not enough to determine how you want to set the target to emulate partial correction. Does that make sense?

Potentially the best calibration comes from a great tool manipulated by an expert. (DON'T touch that... :rolleyes:)

The JBL tech that did my Synthesis® calibration came out before the final install and told me to put panels here, diffusers there, etc., then he confirmed that every cable and every connection was exactly right.

Then he gave me a week to obey his commands.

When he came back, he set up five calibrated mics, two laptops, a wireless router connected via ethernet to the Hi-QNet ports on the SDEC units, and the DACS unit, and off we went. During the calibration, my buddy and I were gophers, moving this and that at his command, putting a panel up, taking it down, holding an extra diffuser, sliding the sub 1" this way or that, toeing in the fronts 1 degree at a time.

I also noticed he ignored the auto setup option in the software and handled every correction manually. He'd show me the correction on screen, we'd listen a bit, he'd ask my opinion, then we'd review everything to that point. It seemed to take forever, and at one point one of the mics appeared to bother him, so we switched it out with one of the spares and started over.

I found it to be a very active process, not at all what I expected. What I expected was to sit in a chair while he fiddled with some controls, then, PRESTO!, we're done. Instead it was a real process, driven by his experience and talent as we worked to bring the room, the system, and the EQ into unity. When he finally compiled everything and uploaded it into the SDEC system memory, it was quite a moment.

One thing I learned is that sometimes to gain maximum control, you have to give it to someone else.

If there are Audessey guys out there like this, then it could be quite a step up.

I haven't used the Pro unit since they implemented the ability to set the target curve, but I believe it only shows you a very low resolution "before" graph, which is not enough to determine how you want to set the target to emulate partial correction. Does that make sense?No. It shows you one of the available standard target curves available for your hardware. You then edit that target curve with fairly high resolution tools. In other words, one can set one's target/goal. It has nothing to do with editing the measured data.

Potentially the best calibration comes from a great tool manipulated by an expert. (DON'T touch that... :rolleyes:)

The JBL tech that did my Synthesis® calibration came out before the final install and told me to put panels here, diffusers there, etc., then he confirmed that every cable and every connection was exactly right.

Then he gave me a week to obey his commands.

When he came back, he set up five calibrated mics, two laptops, a wireless router connected via ethernet to the Hi-QNet ports on the SDEC units, and the DACS unit, and off we went. During the calibration, my buddy and I were gophers, moving this and that at his command, putting a panel up, taking it down, holding an extra diffuser, sliding the sub 1" this way or that, toeing in the fronts 1 degree at a time.

I also noticed he ignored the auto setup option in the software and handled every correction manually. He'd show me the correction on screen, we'd listen a bit, he'd ask my opinion, then we'd review everything to that point. It seemed to take forever, and at one point one of the mics appeared to bother him, so we switched it out with one of the spares and started over.

I found it to be a very active process, not at all what I expected. What I expected was to sit in a chair while he fiddled with some controls, then, PRESTO!, we're done. Instead it was a real process, driven by his experience and talent as we worked to bring the room, the system, and the EQ into unity. When he finally compiled everything and uploaded it into the SDEC system memory, it was quite a moment.

One thing I learned is that sometimes to gain maximum control, you have to give it to someone else.

If there are Audessey guys out there like this, then it could be quite a step up.

How do you get in touch with them?

How do you get in touch with them?

Generally, through JBL Synthesis® dealers. Of course, it's only offered to JBL Synthesis® owners, so if JBL isn't your cup of tea, then it has no value.

It's a real systems approach; that is, the software program is already loaded with every possible component in the Synthesis® line, and it knows in advance what each speaker, amp, pre/pro, SDEC, etc. is like. The tech inputs the components that are in the system being calibrated and those profiles are called up and used for that particular calibration.

In addition, each individual unit is checked through the system prior to calibration, so individual variances are taken into account. All five mics are hot, so the entire room is sampled at once.

What it doesn't have is profiles of your sources, such as DVD or Bluray player, etc. However, it's still pretty cool that it knows all the other gear in your system. With Audessey, I don't think it has profiles of your amps, cable sets, or speakers, though I'm sure it has the capability to gather a little of this info during calibration. The good thing about Audessey and similar systems is that they're agnostic. They can work with any system (that licenses it) rather than being proprietary like JBL DACS.

Since the JBL DACS system is really Harman's technology, I'm guessing that Revel has access to it and possibly Infinity. Also, since the JBL SDECs are based on BSS Audio (another Harman unit) SoundWeb London BLU units, that's another route for system calibration, but not for the faint hearted.

I'll bet some JBL Synthesis® dealers can hook you up with this type of calibration. AVS member ifor knows more about this than I do. Perhaps he'll chime in.

If you want to PM me, I'll give you contact info for the guy that did mine. He now has his own company, and he does more than Synthesis® work. Though he's in SoCal, he's been all over the place, and he knows techs world wide.

Potentially the best calibration comes from a great tool manipulated by an expert. (DON'T touch that... :rolleyes:)

The JBL tech that did my Synthesis® calibration came out before the final install and told me to put panels here, diffusers there, etc., then he confirmed that every cable and every connection was exactly right.

Then he gave me a week to obey his commands.

When he came back, he set up five calibrated mics, two laptops, a wireless router connected via ethernet to the Hi-QNet ports on the SDEC units, and the DACS unit, and off we went. During the calibration, my buddy and I were gophers, moving this and that at his command, putting a panel up, taking it down, holding an extra diffuser, sliding the sub 1" this way or that, toeing in the fronts 1 degree at a time.

I also noticed he ignored the auto setup option in the software and handled every correction manually. He'd show me the correction on screen, we'd listen a bit, he'd ask my opinion, then we'd review everything to that point. It seemed to take forever, and at one point one of the mics appeared to bother him, so we switched it out with one of the spares and started over.

I found it to be a very active process, not at all what I expected. What I expected was to sit in a chair while he fiddled with some controls, then, PRESTO!, we're done. Instead it was a real process, driven by his experience and talent as we worked to bring the room, the system, and the EQ into unity. When he finally compiled everything and uploaded it into the SDEC system memory, it was quite a moment.

One thing I learned is that sometimes to gain maximum control, you have to give it to someone else.

If there are Audessey guys out there like this, then it could be quite a step up

I offer exactly what you just described as a service before the Audyssey install. My motto is that Audyssey helps you as much as you help it. I look at Audyssey as a polishing tool, just smooth out a few of the rough edges left over, not the be all end all.

No. It shows you one of the available standard target curves available for your hardware. You then edit that target curve with fairly high resolution tools. In other words, one can set one's target/goal. It has nothing to do with editing the measured data.

My point is that if you like some of what Audyssey has done, but not all, there is no way to back off of the amount of correction applied to reach some sort of happy medium. You could fake it by setting a target curve that emulates half correction, for example, but you first need to be able to view the uncorrected FR plot. Then you would have to eyeball it to set the target. In other words, to set a target curve you have to know what you want, which doesn't work to well if all that you want to do is reduce the amount of correction in a particular range.

My point is that if you like some of what Audyssey has done, but not all, there is no way to back off of the amount of correction applied to reach some sort of happy medium. You could fake it by setting a target curve that emulates half correction, for example, but you first need to be able to view the uncorrected FR plot. Then you would have to eyeball it to set the target. In other words, to set a target curve you have to know what you want, which doesn't work to well if all that you want to do is reduce the amount of correction in a particular range.

You can target anything you want. Any target curve you want you can achieve manually in Audyssey PRO.

How do you get in touch with them?

Go to www.homeacoustics.net directly to find an HAA person who will do exactly the same thing, and maybe more, for your system. Contact them directly to find the best available person in your area. That is my suggestion to you. I know for a fact there are a couple of folks on the East Coast who are fanatical about getting it right within the confines of room and current setup limitations as well as your restrictions.

What it doesn't have is profiles of your sources, such as DVD or Bluray player, etc. However, it's still pretty cool that it knows all the other gear in your system. With Audessey, I don't think it has profiles of your amps, cable sets, or speakers, though I'm sure it has the capability to gather a little of this info during calibration.Not only does it not gather any of this information during calibration, it does not need to. It simply measures the sound produced by the specific speakers in the specific room. What the JBL system adds (aside from the operational/programming issues) is knowledge of the limits (frequency/power) of the speakers and amps.

Do you really think that "cable sets" are of any relevance here? :rolleyes:

My point is that if you like some of what Audyssey has done, but not all, there is no way to back off of the amount of correction applied to reach some sort of happy medium. You could fake it by setting a target curve that emulates half correction, for example, but you first need to be able to view the uncorrected FR plot. Then you would have to eyeball it to set the target. In other words, to set a target curve you have to know what you want, which doesn't work to well if all that you want to do is reduce the amount of correction in a particular range.Kinda ass backward, imho.

First of all, one can view the uncorrected FR plot.
Second, one can have a large library of correction curves in AudysseyPro, if one wants.
Third, one can easily run the measured data through any of the target curves for a new result, without remeasuring.

I don't think one should be messing with this kinda thing unless one has a pretty good idea of what one's target is.

Kinda ass backward, imho.



You're welcome to your opinion, but being able to adjust the filter values works very well for me. As I've said several times, I understand that you can basically get a similar end result by setting the target curve by eye, it's just more guess work.

For instance, I used the PEQ in the Classe prepro to flatten the response, listened, and didn't completely care for the sound of the midrange. To get a soud that I was happy with, I started toggling the filters I had applied to the the midrange on and off while listening to some of my reference recordings. Through this process I was able pinpoint the areas that needed some subjective adjustment and I ended up reducing some the filter values a bit (undercorrecting).

But I think we have taken this exhange as far as we can, so don't feel obligated to reply.

two things are at play.
1. Accuracy. a strange concept, rather esoteric. very few people are interested in it.
2. Preference. Usually mistaken for #1.

The funny thing is that in video, we slave and slave to pray at the temple of D65 accuracy/REC709 accuracy. some even rant about 5nm precision. but then audio comes up, and nobody gives a spit about accuracy. With video, when we first get things accurate. there is actually a bit of a learning curve since we are not used to accurate video. but after a while, we really appreciate seeing what hte director intended. but with audio, who cares what the producer worked on... i was more bass!

i realize that much of this has to do with individual hearing response. but it is a strange landscape.

Go to www.homeacoustics.net directly to find an HAA person who will do exactly the same thing, and maybe more, for your system. Contact them directly to find the best available person in your area. That is my suggestion to you. I know for a fact there are a couple of folks on the East Coast who are fanatical about getting it right within the confines of room and current setup limitations as well as your restrictions.

Is it fair to say that assuming I have intention to hire someone at the described caliber for elaborate calibration, I do not necessarily need Audyssey in my SSP?

You're welcome to your opinion, but being able to adjust the filter values works very well for me. As I've said several times, I understand that you can basically get a similar end result by setting the target curve by eye, it's just more guess work.

For instance, I used the PEQ in the Classe prepro to flatten the response, listened, and didn't completely care for the sound of the midrange. To get a soud that I was happy with, I started toggling the filters I had applied to the the midrange on and off while listening to some of my reference recordings. Through this process I was able pinpoint the areas that needed some subjective adjustment and I ended up reducing some the filter values a bit (undercorrecting).

But I think we have taken this exhange as far as we can, so don't feel obligated to reply.

Assuming Audyssey provides a flat response, why would you or anyone want to adjust it? There can be 2 logical reasons:

1) Audyssey is not accurate
2) You don't like accurate sound

Both I presume to be equally unlikely. :confused:

Is it fair to say that assuming I have intention to hire someone at the described caliber for elaborate calibration, I do not necessarily need Audyssey in my SSP?
Actually, you might be better off finding the "who" and then asking them how they would prefer doing it.

Assuming Audyssey provides a flat response, why would you or anyone want to adjust it? There can be 2 logical reasons:

1) Audyssey is not accurate
2) You don't like accurate sound

Both I presume to be equally unlikely. :confused:

Actually the standard Audyssey curve included in most AVRs has a gentle boost in the bass and a gentle roll-off in the high frequencies. There is also an Audyssey "Flat" curve which, of course, aims for a flat response.

Assuming Audyssey provides a flat response, why would you or anyone want to adjust it? There can be 2 logical reasons:

1) Audyssey is not accurate
2) You don't like accurate sound

Both I presume to be equally unlikely. :confused:

I'll leave aside any comments on Audyssey, and comment on 2)

The fact of the matter is that the majority of people have never experienced truly accurate sound. Many, when they experience it, simply don't like it....Some people prefer a less accurate presentation, with scant regard to genuine fidelity. The simple fact remains that the majority of people mistake personal preference for accuracy. Certain sectors of the AV industry depend on that fact for their very survival.

I want accuracy rather that some exaggerated emphasis at various points in the spectrum.

Personally, I have no desire to have my Chateau Lafite ruined by some douche bag pouring a frikkin' Red-Bull into it.
.

...yes, and decant first please. :)

Actually the standard Audyssey curve included in most AVRs has a gentle boost in the bass and a gentle roll-off in the high frequencies. There is also an Audyssey "Flat" curve which, of course, aims for a flat response.Of course, the standard Audyssey curve was created to provide a more "accurate" representation in the home of what would have been experienced in the theater. So, the issue for discussion has to include one's definition of "accuracy."

I'll leave aside any comments on Audyssey, and comment on 2)

The fact of the matter is that the majority of people have never experienced truly accurate sound. Many, when they experience it, simply don't like it....Some people prefer a less accurate presentation, with scant regard to genuine fidelity. The simple fact remains that the majority of people mistake personal preference for accuracy. Certain sectors of the AV industry depend on that fact for their very survival.

I want accuracy rather that some exaggerated emphasis at various points in the spectrum.

Personally, I have no desire to have my Chateau Lafite ruined by some douche bag pouring a frikkin' Red-Bull into it.
.

Coldmachine -

I started off with the pursuit for accuracy and was a diehard, textbook objectivist for quite a while. I bought speakers with the flattest response I could find (several of them) and used Audyessy and a few other EQs to "correct" the in-room response, and eventually had my room treated. I wanted "accuracy", and according to the graphs and measurements, I got it, yet at the end of it all, certain things didn't sound right to me. Some of it is personal preference, but I know how a real human voice sounds, so when I hear an unnatural quality to human voice through a sound system, yet they measure flat, I trust my ears over the measurement. Not that measurements couldn't pick up what I was hearing, its just that whatever I was hearing did not always line up with the measurements provided by the tools I was using.

My question is, how do we know that something like Audyssey is really the correct approach to achieving accuracy and how do you know that what you've heard was "truly accurate"? Trinnov and Lyngdorf take drastically different approachs to how they gather data and how that data is manipulated for their room EQs. So which of these is the really accurate? The one that sounds the most realistic of course. ;)

You calibrate to flat at the seating locations. If you are producing an input signal which is "flat", the output at the seating locations should also be flat. Now you know your system will reproduce, accurately, exactly what is thrown at it ... bad recordings and all.

Now, to carry that somewhat further. In the end, the objective is to reproduce in your room what the director/sound engineer heard following the final mix. Cannot do that for music...can be done for film...BUT...film is also mixed to a "house curve". Now that you have accurate, you need to tune to a house curve response.

Actually the standard Audyssey curve included in most AVRs has a gentle boost in the bass and a gentle roll-off in the high frequencies. There is also an Audyssey "Flat" curve which, of course, aims for a flat response.

Close, but there is no boost in the bass, only the treble roll-off in the standard curve.

You calibrate to flat at the seating locations. If you are producing an input signal which is "flat", the output at the seating locations should also be flat. Now you know your system will reproduce, accurately, exactly what is thrown at it ... bad recordings and all.

Now, to carry that somewhat further. In the end, the objective is to reproduce in your room what the director/sound engineer heard following the final mix. Cannot do that for music...can be done for film...BUT...film is also mixed to a "house curve". Now that you have accurate, you need to tune to a house curve response.

Dennis -

You've likely got quite a bit more practtical experience in the matter of sound calibration than me, so what do you make of the different approaches to measuring used by the three main EQ companies? Audyssey has you take measurements at each seating location, Trinnov uses a special three-tiered mic, and Lyngdorf takes almost random samplings around the room. So even if they all aim for "flat", surely each of these will give you different results based on the difference in data they start with.

Do you really think that "cable sets" are of any relevance here? :rolleyes:

Nice pull, Kal. Couldn't find a syntax error or spelling mistake to roll your eyes at?

It's just a freakin' list. ;)

Edit: And I'm sure you know this but maybe others don't. JBL supplies an (expensive) cable set, pre-cut to length, terminated, and labeled, and the set you have actually can be entered into the system. That's not a claim that it's superior to throwing some other cables in there; it's just a piece of information.

Dennis -

You've likely got quite a bit more practtical experience in the matter of sound calibration than me, so what do you make of the different approaches to measuring used by the three main EQ companies? Audyssey has you take measurements at each seating location, Trinnov uses a special three-tiered mic, and Lyngdorf takes almost random samplings around the room. So even if they all aim for "flat", surely each of these will give you different results based on the difference in data they start with.Well, I am not so sure. I have some experience with Audyssey and ARC and I have heard two lengthy demos of Lyngdorf. My feeling is that the results obtained at the main listening position are/will be pretty much the same. I suspect the same will be true of Trinnov. There is much more consensus about goals for the results at the single position than there is about how to deal with the "generalization" to a wider seating area.

Nice pull, Kal. Couldn't find a syntax error or spelling mistake to roll your eyes at?

It's just a freakin' list. ;)It was just a quip.

Edit: And I'm sure you know this but maybe others don't. JBL supplies an (expensive) cable set, pre-cut to length, terminated, and labeled, and the set you have actually can be entered into the system. That's not a claim that it's superior to throwing some other cables in there; it's just a piece of information. I wonder what value there is to knowing that piece of information.

Well, I am not so sure. I have some experience with Audyssey and ARC and I have heard two lengthy demos of Lyngdorf. My feeling is that the results obtained at the main listening position are/will be pretty much the same. I suspect the same will be true of Trinnov. There is much more consensus about goals for the results at the single position than there is about how to deal with the "generalization" to a wider seating area.

Anything is possible, but I find it hard to believe that taking a reading at the main seat, and then two or more measurements in compeletely random locations in the room, as Lyngdorf does, would result in the same "corrections" made to the signal as would be made by Audyssey or ARC.

And "pretty much the same" does not = the same. A small deviation of +/- 2dB in the corrections made could be the difference between someone liking or not liking the end result.

Anything is possible, but I find it hard to believe that taking a reading at the main seat, and then two or more measurements in compeletely random locations in the room, as Lyngdorf does, would result in the same "corrections" made to the signal as would be made by Audyssey or ARC. Really? I think the biggest differences will be due to what they do with the data.

And "pretty much the same" does not = the same. A small deviation of +/- 2dB in the corrections made could be the difference between someone liking or not liking the end result.Sure but since I used/heard each under quite different conditions, it would be foolish of me to call them identical. From what I heard, they were all pretty good at the main seating location but varied in success and what they did at the ancillary seats. So, what I stated was speculation based on some limited observations. Nothing more.

Really? I think the biggest differences will be due to what they do with the data.

Well I guess one way to find out would be to perform room EQ with Audyssey, ARC, Trinnov, and Lyngdorf, set the target for flat response, then measure the corrected response with something like REW, Fuzzmeasure, or ETF and see what we get. That would be a comparison that I'd love to read.



Sure but since I used/heard each under quite different conditions, it would be foolish of me to call them identical. From what I heard, they were all pretty good at the main seating location but varied in success and what they did at the ancillary seats. So, what I stated was speculation based on some limited observations. Nothing more.

Fair enough. :)

Dennis -

You've likely got quite a bit more practtical experience in the matter of sound calibration than me, so what do you make of the different approaches to measuring used by the three main EQ companies? Audyssey has you take measurements at each seating location, Trinnov uses a special three-tiered mic, and Lyngdorf takes almost random samplings around the room. So even if they all aim for "flat", surely each of these will give you different results based on the difference in data they start with.

Does Trinnov even exist as a real product?

David

Well I guess one way to find out would be to perform room EQ with Audyssey, ARC, Trinnov, and Lyngdorf, set the target for flat response, then measure the corrected response with something like REW, Fuzzmeasure, or ETF and see what we get. That would be a comparison that I'd love to read.Me, too. I wish I could sign up to do it but not until I retire from my day job.

Does Trinnov even exist as a real product?

David? It does exist as a professional device. It is incorporated into a Sherwood AVR which is supposed to be shipping now. It is being adapted to a consumer-targeted standalone by ADA and, later, to be incorporated into ADA prepros.

? It does exist as a professional device. It is incorporated into a Sherwood AVR which is supposed to be shipping now. It is being adapted to a consumer-targeted standalone by ADA and, later, to be incorporated into ADA prepros.

The Sherwood R-972 AVR to be exact.

http://www.sherwoodusa.com/

Me, too. I wish I could sign up to do it but not until I retire from my day job.

Given your coverage of many of the different room correction systems, wouldn't this be right in line with your day job?

Given your coverage of many of the different room correction systems, wouldn't this be right in line with your day job?That's what I do for fun. I don't think you know what my day job is. http://www.med.nyu.edu/research/rubink01.html

That's what I do for fun. I don't think you know what my day job is. http://www.med.nyu.edu/research/rubink01.html

Sorry Kal, did not know that about you. Seems like some pretty mind-bending work you do there at NYU.

This finding suggests that the geometry of the multinucleate muscle fibers may reflect nuclear expression under the influence of exogenous tissue factors.

Is that even English? ;)

Is that even English? ;)Technical jargon. Sounds pretty weird out of context.

Is it fair to say that assuming I have intention to hire someone at the described caliber for elaborate calibration, I do not necessarily need Audyssey in my SSP?

Correct! However, it will not be cheap. It will likely be better, but not cheaper. The most expensive part of a system is getting the room integrated with the components. PM me, I'll get you a name who can get you in touch with the people you seek in the region.

Actually, you might be better off finding the "who" and then asking them how they would prefer doing it.

+1

Air Force is a bit behind the Navy on that one. ;)

Ah, Dizzman,

Let me enlighten you to the Home Acoustics Alliance (HAA) Level II Guru! :D

www.homeacoustics.net

THIS certification class is like non-other. You WILL learn how to properly calibrate a home theater...whether you like it or not!........snip.....
Hi there "George"! Good to see your spreading the word. Nice running into you at the ATL pre-CEDIA gathering. Ah, and thanks for the weather.

Correct! However, it will not be cheap. It will likely be better, but not cheaper. The most expensive part of a system is getting the room integrated with the components. PM me, I'll get you a name who can get you in touch with the people you seek in the region.
"George", your not talking about the "Hear No Evil" boys are you? ;)

Hey jamin!

Why, thank you sir! It was a pleasure just playing second fiddle to you guys!

Uncle George

"George", your not talking about the "Hear No Evil" boys are you? ;)

I wouldn't dream of it.;)

For reference folks, if Jamin can't make pudding out of it, it ain't going to happen. Best audio calibrator on the planet.

Ah Dennis, Tiz fine praise for sure and I thank you for it. To be fair, I've had great spaces to work with since " Noone kinna make a room like Erskine!". Facts are, without the room you got squat. ;)

two things are at play.
1. Accuracy. a strange concept, rather esoteric. very few people are interested in it.
2. Preference. Usually mistaken for #1.

The funny thing is that in video, we slave and slave to pray at the temple of D65 accuracy/REC709 accuracy. some even rant about 5nm precision. but then audio comes up, and nobody gives a spit about accuracy. With video, when we first get things accurate. there is actually a bit of a learning curve since we are not used to accurate video. but after a while, we really appreciate seeing what hte director intended. but with audio, who cares what the producer worked on... i was more bass!

i realize that much of this has to do with individual hearing response. but it is a strange landscape.


Where would we be if nobody ever trusted their eyes and ears? You have to use your eyes to make a judgement on the best video displays-technologys. You have to use your ears when you pick out a pair of speakers. Choosing the best equipment is 90%-95% of the battle. Fine tuning is the extra 5-10%. What good is it when someone tells you your audio and video is accurate but they look and sound like crap? I think it's possible given some of the 'isf' images i have seen on this forum. But some do look accurate. And those who pick speakers based on a frequency graph they deserve crap sound imo. In the end we watch with are eyes and listen with our ears. All this calibration to accuracy with regards to audio and video i bet= souless calibration. Ask a real piano tuner if machine or ear is the best method for accuracy. Adjusting a eq by ear imo is the easiest thing that can be done by ear. But the whole preference vs accuracy debate will always come up.

Dennis, What if I don't like pudding? Besides, most of Jamin's gear is in my office.

Zues - We always still verify what we measure with massive amounts of listening. In the HAA LII class, every time we have the students move something, or change a setting, they listen. However, measurements often will show us how we need to fix the problems that we hear. I think we probably agree on several things.

I do however disagree with gear being 90-95 percent of the battle. You would be astounded at how great a properly engineered and calibrated room can sound with mid-fi equipment. I know this is the Ultra High End thread, but I find it immensely satisfying being able to give an average Joe an exceptional audio experience. Sure, you won't likely get the huge dynamics you have in Genelecs, or the detail available from Aerial 20T's. But if the speaker positioning, sub placement, listener seating position, dsp settings, and room treatments aren't right, then I'd wager an engineered mid-fi room will sound better.

Soulless Calibration? Sane people run away when Jamin and I work together on a project. We don't stay up late at night after a calibration and marvel at our response plots and ETG charts. We sit and listen as long as we can, grinning goofily at how that vibraphone dances inches from our face, astounded at how the organ concerto sounds like we are in a 600 seat recital hall rather than a 12x18 room, and marveling at the way a single female soloist can appear magically, completely stable yet floating above where we know the speakers really are. But those measurements sure helped us get there!

Adam

Accurate musical reproduction is not all about frequency response ... impulse response, step response, phase, etc ALL play a part in what we hear. Go listen to a well designed speaker (that has optimized all of the above parameters in a well designed room) and THEN and only then would you be able to decide if you like " accurate". That said, most audiophiles (regardless of the price of their systems) do not like accurate.

There are lots of reasons for that and one important one is that they have no true reference. Their only reference is recorded music or amplified music.

But since this is a hobby, if you like "preference" versus "reference" that is OK.

What if I don't like pudding?
Glenfarclas 1974?

Besides, most of Jamin's gear is in my office
Then why are we beating the sheet out of our gear? We could be depreciating his.

You calibrate to flat at the seating locations. If you are producing an input signal which is "flat", the output at the seating locations should also be flat.
Dennis,
Could you elaborate on what you mean by flat at the seating position. I realize you qualified it by stating the input signal is flat, but I just need you to elaborate further. As you are likely aware, Dr. Toole found that listeners preferred a frequency response that sloped downwards above 10KHz (?) at the listening position. Also, as you know, theaters and recital rooms do not sound the same at the listening position as they do at the output point (be it speaker or instrument). It is my understanding the rooms absorb high frequencies, thus the produced (or reproduced if by speaker) sound at the listening position in effect has a downward sloping frequency. I would appreciate any insight you and your colleagues can provide in this matter.

Thanks

[QUOTE=Dennis Erskine;17285980]Glenfarclas 1974?


1974? Best I have on the shelf is a 1981. Bah. Trumped again.

I think what needs to be defined is what is everyone calling accurate? If the assumption is accurate means I have a flat room response curve from 20-20k, then there is a great misunderstanding about what guys like me accomplish in a calibration. Most of us have in mind our own "house curve", and I promise you it isn't ruler flat.

For the moment, let's ignore the fact that movie studios have standards that are repeatable, and music studios, uhm, do not. The first standard for a playback system is to reproduce the content faithfully. A reasonably good collection of kit is able to accomplish that part, until we decide to put that gear in a room. For movies, we have have enough information about how the audio track was recorded to be able to faithfully reproduce it.

Back to accuracy. Once we take that reasonably good collection of gear and put it into a room, we now have two measurements at odds with each other. Call them speaker response and room response. Speaker response would be the near field response plot of that speaker. It is also helpful to take that measurement off axis, horizontally and vertically, so we know what the sound coming off the walls looks like! Now, that is the BEST that speaker is capable of sounding. It will not be flat. If it looks flat, then you are probably looking at a 1/3 octave smoothed plot. Room response is how that speaker now sounds at the listening position. If have to use the word accurate, then I would define it as having the room response match the speaker response.

My first goal is to get the primary listening position to look like that near field measurement. Obviously they won't match...high frequency roll off, SBIR, room modes, directivity, sound power. By properly placing speakers, listeners, subs, phase, time alignment, etc we can start to create an accurate response at the primary.

So we can call that Reference maybe. Preference would then be seasoning to taste. Maybe a shelf that rolls off the highs starting at 7k, or boosting the subwoofer starting at 50Hz for the avid action movie client.

[QUOTE=Dennis Erskine;17285980]Glenfarclas 1974?


1974? Best I have on the shelf is a 1981. Bah. Trumped again.

I think what needs to be defined is what is everyone calling accurate? If the assumption is accurate means I have a flat room response curve from 20-20k, then there is a great misunderstanding about what guys like me accomplish in a calibration. Most of us have in mind our own "house curve", and I promise you it isn't ruler flat.

For the moment, let's ignore the fact that movie studios have standards that are repeatable, and music studios, uhm, do not. The first standard for a playback system is to reproduce the content faithfully. A reasonably good collection of kit is able to accomplish that part, until we decide to put that gear in a room. For movies, we have have enough information about how the audio track was recorded to be able to faithfully reproduce it.

Back to accuracy. Once we take that reasonably good collection of gear and put it into a room, we now have two measurements at odds with each other. Call them speaker response and room response. Speaker response would be the near field response plot of that speaker. It is also helpful to take that measurement off axis, horizontally and vertically, so we know what the sound coming off the walls looks like! Now, that is the BEST that speaker is capable of sounding. It will not be flat. If it looks flat, then you are probably looking at a 1/3 octave smoothed plot. Room response is how that speaker now sounds at the listening position. If have to use the word accurate, then I would define it as having the room response match the speaker response.

My first goal is to get the primary listening position to look like that near field measurement. Obviously they won't match...high frequency roll off, SBIR, room modes, directivity, sound power. By properly placing speakers, listeners, subs, phase, time alignment, etc we can start to create an accurate response at the primary.

So we can call that Reference maybe. Preference would then be seasoning to taste. Maybe a shelf that rolls off the highs starting at 7k, or boosting the subwoofer starting at 50Hz for the avid action movie client.

I am not sure I followed this post. Why is "flat" not one of your objectives? I understand both speakers and room create distortions. However, after everything is taken into account, I would have thought we should aim to have a flat response in the listening position.

Where would we be if nobody ever trusted their eyes and ears? You have to use your eyes to make a judgement on the best video displays-technologys. You have to use your ears when you pick out a pair of speakers.

I disagree with this post. IMO any sighted evaluation will lead the listener to favor the more reputable brands due to the placebo effect. IMHO ears are in fact the last thing we should trust.

Choosing the best equipment is 90%-95% of the battle. Fine tuning is the extra 5-10%.

This is the first time I heard room was such an insignificant factor in the overall listening experience.

What good is it when someone tells you your audio and video is accurate but they look and sound like crap? I think it's possible given some of the 'isf' images i have seen on this forum. But some do look accurate. And those who pick speakers based on a frequency graph they deserve crap sound imo. In the end we watch with are eyes and listen with our ears. All this calibration to accuracy with regards to audio and video i bet= souless calibration.

When a piano recording sounds like a "piano", that doesn't mean the specific listening setup sounds like "crap". It means the listener doesn't like the sound of piano.

I think I poured too much chum in the water. ;) Before you know it, we'll see Gerry in here.

[QUOTE=appelz;17286301]

I am not sure I followed this post. Why is "flat" not one of your objectives? I understand both speakers and room create distortions. However, after everything is taken into account, I would have thought we should aim to have a flat response in the listening position.

Simply, because flat does not sound good! Raul commented correctly earlier. Plenty of research has demonstrated that listeners prefer a high frequency roll-off. Most also like a little bass ooomph added. But we aren't talking radical differences though.

Flat is one of those misconstrued words as well. Does flat mean a ruler flat frequency response from 20-20k, or a plot that does not exhibit any large peaks or dips? Large high Q variations are clearly audible in some frequency ranges, as well as broader low Q issues.

We use pink noise as a test signal as it more closely represents how we hear, which is roughly logarithmic. Our test equipment then displays that as flat (first definition!). So we know what is being input into the system, and can then compare the output.

All from me for a bit. I got a whole hog to smoke for 150+ guests.

[QUOTE=Dennis Erskine;17285980]Glenfarclas 1974?


My first goal is to get the primary listening position to look like that near field measurement. Obviously they won't match...high frequency roll off, SBIR, room modes, directivity, sound power. By properly placing speakers, listeners, subs, phase, time alignment, etc we can start to create an accurate response at the primary.



What is a reasonable cost for a calibration? Also, anybody that you can suggest in the Chicago area?

David

I disagree with this post. IMO any sighted evaluation will lead the listener to favor the more reputable brands due to the placebo effect. IMHO ears are in fact the last thing we should trust.

I think you may have overstated your position. You certainly are not going to pick speakers on the basis of measurements only (at least most people would not, including audio engineers). The measurements help one narrow the choices, but in the end, one listens. I guess your point is that one must listen in a "blind" fashion. Ideally, yes, but one still listens.

That was an odd comment by Zues regarding the importance of the room, but not an uncommon belief among many audiophiles. Sadly, the poor content of high-end magazines reinforces those beliefs.

You certainly are not going to pick speakers on the basis of measurements only

Heck no! Marketing people got their dirty little hands on those documents...:)

We sit and listen as long as we can, grinning goofily at how that vibraphone dances inches from our face, astounded at how the organ concerto sounds like we are in a 600 seat recital hall rather than a 12x18 room, and marveling at the way a single female soloist can appear magically, completely stable yet floating above where we know the speakers really are.

Adam

God, just don't say Hilili Hilo....just thinking about it makes me cringe.

[QUOTE=appelz;17286301]

What is a reasonable cost for a calibration? Also, anybody that you can suggest in the Chicago area?

David

I am sure anyone of the esteemed HAA members who have so kindly posted here would be willing to service you.

I do however disagree with gear being 90-95 percent of the battle. You would be astounded at how great a properly engineered and calibrated room can sound with mid-fi equipment. I know this is the Ultra High End thread, but I find it immensely satisfying being able to give an average Joe an exceptional audio experience. Sure, you won't likely get the huge dynamics you have in Genelecs, or the detail available from Aerial 20T's. But if the speaker positioning, sub placement, listener seating position, dsp settings, and room treatments aren't right, then I'd wager an engineered mid-fi room will sound better.

I think it depends on the listening level. At reference or high volume the room will come into play more. At average listening levels i think the hifi will beat mid-fi everytime. But i agree the room is very important along with all those other things you mentioned to get the most out of hifi speakers. Especially at loud volumes.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by flat at the seating position. I realize you qualified it by stating the input signal is flat, but I just need you to elaborate further. As you are likely aware, Dr. Toole found that listeners preferred a frequency response that sloped downwards above 10KHz (?)

The input signal should match what is measured at the seating location. If that pink noise signal is flat, then good...you now know you can produce, at the seating location exactly what was input into the system. In the absence of that criteria, you cannot have accurate.

If you note, in that same post, I mentioned the "house curve". That curve is based upon "user preference" and parallels Dr. Toole's findings. Adam also notes the same.

If you measure a speaker in the near field and you see a rise in output starting at about 10kHz, you know that speaker was designed to be listened to at a distance. Yes, high frequencies do roll off faster than mid/low frequencies. That uptick in the near field response is designed to compensate for the faster HF roll off. If, in the seating locations, the HF is too low or rolled off too much due to distance, that cannot be fixed (without blowing tweeters). If it hasn't rolled off enough to satisfy preference or the "house curve", that can be easily fixed.

In multi-row rooms, you also need to contend with the difference in SPL between the first row and subsequent rows. To achieve a more even sound level in each row, the seats must be moved further back into the room ... now, once you do that, you have that HF roll off to reconsider. This would illustrate why larger rooms tend to use speakers with either compression or horn loaded drivers. A 1" dome tweeter won't cut it. Most listeners with a distaste for compression drivers or horns developed that dislike by sitting too close to non-calibrated speakers of those designs.

What is a reasonable cost for a calibration?
That word "reasonable" kind of screws the pooch. :) What's reasonable to one may not be reasonable to another. In any event, a very well qualified individual is going to cost on the order of $1200 to $1500 (or more) per day plus expenses and you should plan on two to three days. (There's no "dot in the box" in audio.) Each calibrator will vary. It's best to speak to one and work out your specific needs and constraints. Both Jamin and Adam are good starting points ... and if you get both of them at the same time, your room is going to be stunning.

That word "reasonable" kind of screws the pooch. :) What's reasonable to one may not be reasonable to another. In any event, a very well qualified individual is going to cost on the order of $1200 to $1500 (or more) per day plus expenses and you should plan on two to three days. (There's no "dot in the box" in audio.) Each calibrator will vary. It's best to speak to one and work out your specific needs and constraints. Both Jamin and Adam are good starting points ... and if you get both of them at the same time, your room is going to be stunning.

Naive question. Why would you need 2 calibrators at the same time? Do they have different areas of expertise?

No one said anything about need.

Quite possible.

and expert in acoustics can do lots to getting the room as optimal as possible. a tuner can start going nuts on the system. And that can get crazy beyond belief while still staying cleanly in the realm of logical science.

I was listening to Keith yates talking about a driver by driver calibration of a system and thinking oy vay!

all in the pursuit of excellence.

Well Put Dennis

That word "reasonable" kind of screws the pooch. :) What's reasonable to one may not be reasonable to another. In any event, a very well qualified individual is going to cost on the order of $1200 to $1500 (or more) per day plus expenses and you should plan on two to three days. (There's no "dot in the box" in audio.) Each calibrator will vary. It's best to speak to one and work out your specific needs and constraints. Both Jamin and Adam are good starting points ... and if you get both of them at the same time, your room is going to be stunning.

Yes, well. instead of "reasonable" I could have said "usual and customary". Like everything else in life, it's good to plan ahead and budget what one is willing to pay for a service. Is there anybody in the Chicago area that you guys know of and respect? Without going into details, there was a fairly well-known guy whose name frequents this forum, who I contacted a couple of years ago. He was never able to return a phone call, perhaps because he was too busy. I'm very willing to pay for this type of calibration, since I think that there is a lot of bang-for-the-buck. But I need someone local, who is responsive.

David

If you measure a speaker in the near field and you see a rise in output starting at about 10kHz, you know that speaker was designed to be listened to at a distance. Yes, high frequencies do roll off faster than mid/low frequencies. That uptick in the near field response is designed to compensate for the faster HF roll off. If, in the seating locations, the HF is too low or rolled off too much due to distance, that cannot be fixed (without blowing tweeters). If it hasn't rolled off enough to satisfy preference or the "house curve", that can be easily fixed.



I've suspected this to be the case and it explains why my speakers sound better in the treble at 8 feet than at my 13 foot listening position.

Question: Because my speakers are not tipped up in the treble in the nearfield, I've lifted the treble response by 3dB above 9KHz so that the reponse is closer to flat at the listening position. Are my 1" softdome tweeters really at risk of being blown with what seems like a mild lift? To the best of my knowledge, the tweeters are a high power handling design (Scan Speak Classic 9500), and I haven't heard any strain in the sound at high volume, but maybe I don't know what to listen for. Is there any way to test to see if the tweeters are being driven too hard?

......... snip........ Is there any way to test to see if the tweeters are being driven too hard?
Short of outright clipping, the short answer is no. The best analogy I know of to describe the problem is this:

How much heat can your fingertip take before you are hurt? Turns out it is time AND temperature. Flick da finger through the candle flame up close and not much happens. Hold it there and yowie! Move up a foot and you can take more time before pain.

Power x Time is energy. Voice coil can only take so much in a given time. Low average power and ocassional peaks is one thing. Higher average can't take too much more. Is the music highly compressed, that is low peak to average ratio, and played at high level for long periods? Or is the source material have a low average with a big peak to average ratio played at a level where only the peaks reach the max? See what I mean? Very program dependant. Then don't forget the actual spectral content as well.

Whew, go get coffee and things wake up!
As Il Professore points out.......snip.....But if the speaker positioning, sub placement, listener seating position, dsp settings, and room treatments aren't right, then I'd wager an engineered mid-fi room will sound better......snip.....
Adam
And he nailed it in one. What do you put where and why? You should be able to completely answer that question for everything in the room including any DSP settings.

All of the elements are inextricably comingled. I see a lot of emphasis placed on just few pieces but not the complete system, which includes the room and the people in it. It is not just the frequency response. IT is composed of Clarity, Focus, Envelopment, Frequency response, and Dynamics. ALL of those elements play their part in the system. A true calibration really begins with the design. Anything else is a bandaid.

Fortunately because of big name companies people are becoming aware of the bandaids and how they can help. DSP should be the final icing and not the main course.

When you put together the puzzle correctly, as Adam says, you have magic.

Jeez, more on all this "flat" business later. Wish I was going "Hog Wild" myself tonight. :)

I think it depends on the listening level. At reference or high volume the room will come into play more. At average listening levels i think the hifi will beat mid-fi everytime. But i agree the room is very important along with all those other things you mentioned to get the most out of hifi speakers. Especially at loud volumes.
I need you to give my garage a stern talking to! That sucker always comes out to play when I unleash acoustic energy into it!! Those surfaces refuse to diffuse and they never absorb even at low energy levels. And the modes, oh the modes, even at low excitation they think everyhing should be served "a la mode" ( ouch ). Louder here, softer there, and completely unintelligible. Well ok, the pipe organ is kinda cool!

Anyway, I need help housebreaking the room. Do you send the Sheetrock and concrete to the same school as the directional cables?

Enough yanking your chain, but truly the room is always there and it is one box that does not care what other boxes you drag into it.

And yes, I am teasing just to make a point is all. :)

Short of outright clipping, the short answer is no. The best analogy I know of to describe the problem is this:

How much heat can your fingertip take before you are hurt? Turns out it is time AND temperature. Flick da finger through the candle flame up close and not much happens. Hold it there and yowie! Move up a foot and you can take more time before pain.

Power x Time is energy. Voice coil can only take so much in a given time. Low average power and ocassional peaks is one thing. Higher average can't take too much more. Is the music highly compressed, that is low peak to average ratio, and played at high level for long periods? Or is the source material have a low average with a big peak to average ratio played at a level where only the peaks reach the max? See what I mean? Very program dependant. Then don't forget the actual spectral content as well.

I like your style: lighthearted but very informative.

So then, how do I tell if there is the audio equivelent of a hot finger tip going on inside my tweeter's voice coil? Some sort of audible distortion? Sticking a meat themometer in one of the ports? Military spec thermal imaging? :rolleyes:

All of the elements are inextricably comingled.

Wow! What a profound statement! I know I have heard that some place before. :p

I like your style: lighthearted but very informative.


Jamin is quite the character.

Gentlemen, what you are experiencing from appelz, jamin, Dennis, etc. is the exactly what is passed on to those who walk through the halls of the Home Acoustics Alliance school of acoustical ineptitude. As I said, you WILL learn how to calibrate a home listening environment.

Wow! What a profound statement! I know I have heard that some place before. :p



Jamin is quite the character.

Gentlemen, what you are experiencing from appelz, jamin, Dennis, etc. is the exactly what is passed on to those who walk through the halls of the Home Acoustics Alliance school of acoustical ineptitude. As I said, you WILL learn how to calibrate a home listening environment.

What's the fee for the course work? How long and where?

Go to www.homeacoustics.net to find out when the next class will be. I think the next one is actually in New Jersey if I am not mistaken.

http://www.homeacoustics.net/DealerSite/DealerHome/DealerHome.asp

Email them for cost.

Me, too. I wish I could sign up to do it but not until I retire from my day job.


What exactly is your day job?

I mean get real and give us all a clue as
to what it is that you do to make a living.

And where exactly is your day job at?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Not to mention how you can spend so much time
posting on AVS given that you have a full time job.

As well as that you seem to have residences in both NYC and Connecticut state.

Cheers

Me, too. I wish I could sign up to do it but not until I retire from my day job.

What exactly is your day job?

I mean get real and give us all a clue as
to what it is that you do to make a living.

And where exactly is your day job at?
And that's your business because?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Inquiring minds that can't read? He posted a link to his job two pages back. Here it is again, not that he owed it to anyone:
http://www.med.nyu.edu/research/rubink01.html
Not to mention how you can spend so much time
posting on AVS given that you have a full time job.
How do you know how much time he spends? Maybe it equals an hour a day. Either way, it's his time.
As well as that you seem to have residences in both NYC and Connecticut state. Cheers
Now you're getting downright scary. Is there some reason you are concerned with how many homes he has? "Cheers" right back at ya.

What exactly is your day job?

I mean get real and give us all a clue as
to what it is that you do to make a living.

And where exactly is your day job at?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Not to mention how you can spend so much time
posting on AVS given that you have a full time job.

As well as that you seem to have residences in both NYC and Connecticut state.

Cheers

What a disturbing post.

Thank you for reminding us why we should never post personal details.

I hope Kal doesn't wake up one morning to find you, pummeling the Purple Polaris, stood at the foot of his bed.

I like your style: lighthearted but very informative.

So then, how do I tell if there is the audio equivelent of a hot finger tip going on inside my tweeter's voice coil? Some sort of audible distortion? Sticking a meat themometer in one of the ports? Military spec thermal imaging? :rolleyes:
Thanks.
I like the meat thermometer. All speakers could have dials on the front. "Man was I red-lining last night, wow!"

Unfortunately (you knew it was coming), not so easy. High brow papers have been written about this stuff and it isn't easy. Heating and cooling of voice coils, power compression, audibility of such, etc. Mostly woofs because the wire in the HF transducers is small and it can get "smoked" way faster than a woof. Smoked as in poof!

Pro guys use various measurements, they got all the 'tronics and processing hooked up ya know. Rms, average, etc. Generally agreed, hmm- I think, peak measure is not it. They can fight over RMS vs Average and such. They also know a lot about what is in the signal path. How much juice going onto the box is getting to the transducer, how much can the transducer take ( they fried em in the past ), blah, blah.

Trick is, when you push a tiny wired speak to the limit, you figure it out about the time the voice coil opens!! Yipes!

Think about this, have you moved your head around to make sure you are in the main axis of the tweet. At the higher frequencies, some speakers are fairly narrow in their dispersion and when you get too far off axis that energy can just drop right off. A bit of toe or tilt can make all the difference. Might mean you can ease up on your HF boost!

Hah, first private demo of Audyssey I experienced they had the center channel pointing at peoples knees! Standard center channel goofy stand. Mains were a bit low as well. A pile of us hooligans grabbed phonebook equivalents and commeced to modify the vertical tilt of things and then continued with the audition.

Hah, first private demo of Audyssey I experienced they had the center channel pointing at peoples knees! Standard center channel goofy stand. Mains were a bit low as well. A pile of us hooligans grabbed phonebook equivalents and commeced to modify the vertical tilt of things and then continued with the audition.Perhaps it was intentional. At the first private demo I had (in an awful hotel room), they had the surrounds placed so that the left was near my left ear and the right was behind a lamp. I do not even recall where the center was but the L/R placement was decidedly asymmetric.

"Hey, if they can fit you, they must be great tailors!"

...................
My own experience with Audyssey has been less satisfactory than your own.
It depends how it's done. Audyssey doesn't fix bad installations. You have to place speakers correctly and prepare room for good audio performance, it means install bass traps, diffusers, absorbers (if possible) and THAN use Audyssey for room equalization.

Are you saying you must have a software like Audessey or MACC to conduct room correction?

I was thinking any professional can perform room correction as long as he has a test tone generator and other required equipment such as a microphone.

Sorry if I am being really ignorant here.There are two different things.
1. Room correction, and treatment,
2. Audyssey room equalization.
What Audyssey PRO does, is like adjusting 2000+ band sophisticated equalizer for every speaker in your system including subwoofer and also automatically sets crossover frequency between speakers and sub.
You can’t do it without Audyssey; you have no access to 2000+band equalizer for every audio channel in your system.
You have to do step 1 before you go to step 2

I think it depends on the listening level. At reference or high volume the room will come into play more. At average listening levels i think the hifi will beat mid-fi everytime. But i agree the room is very important along with all those other things you mentioned to get the most out of hifi speakers. Especially at loud volumes.

Really? If this because the laws of physics change depending on volume? :rolleyes:

I guess that you have. :)

Still, with no local dealer, it would be a crapshoot for me. Also, I've gotten away from buying gear from one-trick-pony companies.

David
Did you check this (http://www.audyssey.com/InstallerWeb/InstallerMap.aspx)?

Perhaps it was intentional. At the first private demo I had (in an awful hotel room), they had the surrounds placed so that the left was near my left ear and the right was behind a lamp. I do not even recall where the center was but the L/R placement was decidedly asymmetric.

"Hey, if they can fit you, they must be great tailors!"Yes, it was intentional. We were looking to find a little more about the Audyssey response when dealing with a situation that was a bit better in the first place.

.......................

And I would agree with him as to the benefits of Audyssey PRO rather than the basic included-mic user-calibration. Basic Audyssey also makes a world of difference, but Audyssey PRO really finishes things off better in my experience.
I calibrated Denon AVR 4308CI after owner already calibrated his receiver himself. He used supplied microphone.

"If this because the laws of physics change depending on volume?"

Damping is nonlinear with level because of stiction.

At low levels the drywall stays "stuck" to the faces of the wall studs, but at higher levels there's squirming and sliding, and damping increases.

This is true of most any multipart structure.

It depends how it's done. Audyssey doesn't fix bad installations.

It was nothing to do with how it was done, and the install wasn't the issue. The Audyssey was simply incapable of delivering the results required.


You have to place speakers correctly and prepare room for good audio performance, it means install bass traps, diffusers, absorbers (if possible) and THAN use Audyssey for room equalization.

Judging by that advice, and I do appreciate the thought behind it, I think we are coming from rather different standpoints.

...........Audyssey is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't work for me in its current form.What version did you use?

There are two different things.
1. Room correction, and treatment,
2. Audyssey room equalization.
What Audyssey PRO does, is like adjusting 2000+ band sophisticated equalizer for every speaker in your system including subwoofer and also automatically sets crossover frequency between speakers and sub.
You can’t do it without Audyssey; you have no access to 2000+band equalizer for every audio channel in your system.
You have to do step 1 before you go to step 2

The need for Audyssey in a professional calibration seems to be one of those sore topics that well-informed people can't agree with.

What version did you use?

I had the original stand-alone pro unit, before the option to set a target curve was implemented.

The need for Audyssey in a professional calibration seems to be one of those sore topics that well-informed people can't agree with.

Not really. I still use Audyssey, and promote it, if that is what people want. However, if someone is willing to pay for the extra time and effort, I am willing and able to do it without the use of Audyssey. There is no crime or abhoration in using it, and Audyssey has done more to promote good sounding rooms than any other company. I guess the moral here is that Audyssey is not the magic bullet. It does not replace the need for proper design, seating and speaker positioning, and treatment, and Audyssey will not say otherwise. It can be, or is, just another piece in the puzzle to use jamin's analogy. I wouldn't be embarassed in using it. Not in the least. What most are saying is that it CAN be better if you have the right person at the helm.

I have heard, and measurement wise seen, Audyssey do some amazing things. It is a tool. You know when you only have a hammer, well lotsa stuff looks like nails. When you have a box full of different tools you see things differently.

I got called into a dedicated cinema that had all Cabasse speakers installed in Art Deco Niches (sp?). Barrel ceiling and Stucco & murialed walls. I called it the reverb room. I believe it was designed by "We B Toys" or something.

Anyway, those speakers stuck in those cubby holes had a serious high Q notch in the response. Darned but that Audyssey did do an amazing job of trying to fix that. It could not remedy it of course, but shure tamed it some. Given that it was a serious Phase based notch I was stunned. Those speakers had to be being harrased quite a bit at the afflicted frequency I'm sure.

The system did sound better with the Audysseys kicked in. Still a reverb room, but better! By the way, that was the way I found the room, FWIW.

I think Dennis and Adam have handled the house curve thing and the Q elements as well. Figured I might toss in some additional Hmm? stuff.

Turns out it can be a bit of a pain to actually measure flat. Meaning the measurement itself is fraught with some peril. You can have a direct sound wave hitting the mic with 0 degree incidence, no reflections, swept measurement, and a proper cal file for the mic and you can probably trust the measurement. Well sorta, maybe.
Oops-gotta tend to a thunderstorm - back in a bit...

That is with a free field calibrated mic. And proper mic technique.

If you have reflections that changes things. Now the heavy weights tell us that no way are we gonna get isotropic "homogenous" fields in our small rooms so...what to do. Anything other than direct incidence will read rong. Multiple wave fronts impinging on the mic simultaneously will read rong. Using a random incidence mike instead can flip things around the otherway.

Grab a B&K multi-field and your probably good to +1/-3 dB above a few KHz. Use random noise on an RTA and your probably reading low- statistics thing. Spatial/temporal averaging and you have another slope to deal with.

Then there is what is it we are measuring thing. Direct sound, reflections, or steady state? All different measures, with different techniques. And you can bounce around those as you move through the spectrum, depending on room acoustics, seating distance, and transducer directivity.

That whole flat deal is a slippery little sucker!

Jamin -

Frankly, I can't make much sense of the results I got with Audyssey Pro. The after graph was very flat from 20Hz to roughly 10KHz with the intended roll-off above that point. But what I heard sounded anything but accurate. The upper bass sounded like a peak had been introduced, the upper midrange, which sounded too hot before Audyssey, sounded even more spotlit afterwards. The only thing that it seemed to do correctly was fill-in a dip in the lower mids.

And on the subject of me boosting the treble 3dB, that pales in comparison to what was done here by Audyssey:

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_FqTNmgNQHz8/SX_oFDqa_nI/AAAAAAAAD3A/UwzCQhbd0iw/s800/IMG_1187.JPG

It looks like Audyssey has boosted the upper treble a good 8-9dB. That doesn't seem like a good thing based on our discussion earlier.

A certain "high flying" acoustician and frequent proponent of expensive Scottish moonshine, pointed me in the direction of the QSC DSP 322ua.

PDF; http://www.qscaudio.com/products/network/dsp/dsp_322ua.php

Is the approach of the calibrator altered in any way when using the QSC or similar device, compared to the Audyssey tools?

Sean

Hi Sean,

No, many calibrators will use QSC DSP products in the chain. However, they can be tricky little buggers to the novice, and if you don't understand how to calculate and implement Q as well as intrumentation that will get you really close that exact frequency peak, a PEQ won't be of much use to you. This is where Audyssey does become a plus.

Regarding the approach, not sure what you mean, but no, there is no different approach in the general sense of the term. I do exactly the same thing whether I use a QSC product or Audyssey. That is to say, I listen, I suggest, I listen, I move, I listen, I measure, I listen, I move some more, I'll measure this time before I listen, I'll listen, I'll PEQ, I'll measure, I'll listen, I'll add treatment, I'll listen and finally add Audyssey if I didn't PEQ, then I'll measure again and maybe change some things.

Jamin -

Frankly, I can't make much sense of the results I got with Audyssey Pro. The after graph was very flat from 20Hz to roughly 10KHz with the intended roll-off above that point. But what I heard sounded anything but accurate. The upper bass sounded like a peak had been introduced, the upper midrange, which sounded too hot before Audyssey, sounded even more spotlit afterwards. The only thing that it seemed to do correctly was fill-in a dip in the lower mids.

And on the subject of me boosting the treble 3dB, that pales in comparison to what was done here by Audyssey:

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_FqTNmgNQHz8/SX_oFDqa_nI/AAAAAAAAD3A/UwzCQhbd0iw/s800/IMG_1187.JPG

It looks like Audyssey has boosted the upper treble a good 8-9dB. That doesn't seem like a good thing based on our discussion earlier.

Tim,

The results you describe are atypical. I wonder if you could outline some of the parameters that resulted in the graph you posted? Were you using the Audyssey Pro Calibrator kit? Were you using software version 2.5, 3.0, or 3.1? Which Denon model did you calibrate? Did you unlock the Pro version with a license key? Have you taken Audyssey Pro training? Did you follow the best-practices guidelines for taking measurements? How many measurements did you take?

Forgive me if my questions seem impertinent. It's just that every properly executed Audyssey calibration I have ever heard or done has resulted in significant improvement. There has to be an explanation for the kind of outcome you describe above.

Pete -

That graph I posted was not mine. That was just an example taken from another user that posted earlier in this thread to show that Audyssey was applying a 9dB boost to the top octave.

I've got an appointment, but here is the before and after for some Monitor Audio GS speakers I owned last year when I had the original Audyssey pro unit.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j193/ptwalker/measurements/MAGSAudysseygraph.jpg

Here's what my set-up looked like.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j193/ptwalker/Speaker%20collection/IMG_0240.jpg

Speaker and subwoofer placement are dictated by the room layout, which is why I had hoped that Audyssey would help.

Pete -

That graph I posted was not mine. That was just an example taken from another user that posted earlier in this thread to show that Audyssey was applying a 9dB boost to the top octave.

I've got an appointment, but here is the before and after for some Monitor Audio GS speakers I owned last year when I had the original Audyssey pro unit.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j193/ptwalker/measurements/MAGSAudysseygraph.jpg

Here's what my set-up looked like.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j193/ptwalker/Speaker%20collection/IMG_0240.jpg

Speaker and subwoofer placement are dictated by the room layout, which is why I had hoped that Audyssey would help.


I know you said that speaker placement was dictated by the layout, but honestly, based on what I see just from the photo very little could help you just as depicted. Subwoofer corner placement will aggravate room modes, L/R speakers are way too close to get a pleasing soundstage (not sure how far you are sitting away) even if you were close, you probably would be too close, center channel in cabinet with no acoustical treatment. As I said before, you need to get the room the best you can as far as placement or treatment before you implement Audyssey or other means of correction. This is fairly typical of what I run into, and folks do expect Audyssey to fix the problems. It can't. Neither could I without making some significant changes. It doesn't matter how many times you upgrade or change out speakers or equipment, the fact is, the application is all wrong. I don't mean to be blunt or critical, and all I am going off is a photo, but these are fairly common problems.

Tim,

The results on the Monitor Audio calibration look more like it. The 9dB boost reflected in the other post has to be the result of some error in the measuring process. It would only make that correction if that is what was called for at the measuring location(s). Some common calibrating errors are...taking the first measurement somewhere other than the 'sweet spot'; placing the mic too close to a boundry or upolstered furniture; not taking at least 8 measurements within the general listening oval; not using the calibrated microphone; not selecting the proper speaker type/size in the set-up menu.

I know you said that speaker placement was dictated by the layout, but honestly, based on what I see just from the photo very little could help you just as depicted. Subwoofer corner placement will aggravate room modes, L/R speakers are way too close to get a pleasing soundstage (not sure how far you are sitting away) even if you were close, you probably would be too close, center channel in cabinet with no acoustical treatment. As I said before, you need to get the room the best you can as far as placement or treatment before you implement Audyssey or other means of correction. This is fairly typical of what I run into, and folks do expect Audyssey to fix the problems. It can't. Neither could I without making some significant changes. It doesn't matter how many times you upgrade or change out speakers or equipment, the fact is, the application is all wrong. I don't mean to be blunt or critical, and all I am going off is a photo, but these are fairly common problems.

No offense taken. I know the room layout and speaker placement is the biggest problem. I didn't expect Audyssey to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but I also didn't expect it to make the sound subjectively worse, which in some areas it did. The main take away was that even though Audyssey made the FR graph flat, it sounded more uneven than without it. However, I have be able to improve things considerably with manual PEQ, measurements taken with Room EQ Wizard, and adjusting the final filter values by ear.

Tim,

The results on the Monitor Audio calibration look more like it. The 9dB boost reflected in the other post has to be the result of some error in the measuring process. It would only make that correction if that is what was called for at the measuring location(s). Some common calibrating errors are...taking the first measurement somewhere other than the 'sweet spot'; placing the mic too close to a boundry or upolstered furniture; not taking at least 8 measurements within the general listening oval; not using the calibrated microphone; not selecting the proper speaker type/size in the set-up menu.

Yes, the results I posted for the Monitor Audio speakers look good on paper, but subjectively Audyssey broke as much as it fixed. As I mentioned earlier, with Audyssey engaged, the upper bass was hooty and thumpy, and the midrange took on an aggressive quality. And I can say with a good degree of certainty that if you or anyone else that has an ear for sound were to have heard the before and after you wouldn't believe that this was just a case of me not preferring an accurate sound.

While I'm sure that I still have much to learn, I do a have solid understanding of how to take measurements and use EQ. I even worked directly with Chris K. of Audyssey to try to correct the issues I was hearing, and he verified that I was doing everything correctly.

I guess we'll just have to chalk this up as an unusual case. I certainly have no beef with Audyssey. Quite the opposite really. I had placed high hopes on it improving the sound of my much less than optimal speaker positioning. I'm glad that it has helped so many others, I just wish that I were one of them. All is not lost though. As I mentioned in my previous post, taking my own measurements and using manual PEQ has done wonders for the sound of my system.

Those of you with specific Audessey calibration experience: have you used it with with AT screens (at least center channel behind the screen) to good effect?

Those of you with specific Audessey calibration experience: have you used it with with AT screens (at least center channel behind the screen) to good effect?

Yesh. Works great!

....................Audyssey is not the magic bullet. It does not replace the need for proper design, seating and speaker positioning, and treatment, This is exactly my point.

Regards

Those of you with specific Audessey calibration experience: have you used it with with AT screens (at least center channel behind the screen) to good effect?

Yes I have all three behind my scope screen and works great I have the Pro mic kit.

Those of you with specific Audessey calibration experience: have you used it with with AT screens (at least center channel behind the screen) to good effect?

No system, auto or manual, should have a problem with AT screens.

It amazes me the BS that some people still spew regarding AT screens.

Which screen, or cloth, are you using or contemplating?

No system, auto or manual, should have a problem with AT screens.

It amazes me the BS that some people still spew regarding AT screens.

Which screen, or cloth, are you using or contemplating?

I've got the 110" WS Stewart Filmscreen Luxus Deluxe Screenwall StudioTek 130 microperf.

Once the Synthesis® calibration was done, the center channel response graph on the laptop was virtually indistinguishable from the exposed FL and FR, and I could hear no difference whatsoever.

I've got the 110" WS Stewart Filmscreen Luxus Deluxe Screenwall StudioTek 130 microperf.

Once the Synthesis® calibration was done, the center channel response graph on the laptop was virtually indistinguishable from the exposed FL and FR, and I could hear no difference whatsoever.

I'm sure that if you had better ears, you would hear that the all of the emotion in the sound has been stripped away, and of course you've erased the microdynamics and "air" around the instruments, all because of that damn AT screen and use of EQ. :p

I'm sure that if you had better ears, you would hear that the all of the emotion in the sound has been stripped away, and of course you've erased the microdynamics and "air" around the instruments, all because of that damn AT screen and use of EQ. :p

Yep, probably. I'm just too friggin' old I guess. When's Bose or Wilson gonna come out with in-ear tympanic membrane replacements? Then I'd be rockin'. :D

I'm sure that if you had better ears, you would hear that the all of the emotion in the sound has been stripped away, and of course you've erased the microdynamics and "air" around the instruments, all because of that damn AT screen and use of EQ. :p

Sound aside, how about the picture? Many folks worry that these screens provide inferior picture quality.

Sound aside, how about the picture? Many folks worry that these screens provide inferior picture quality.

MANY people do not. some alarmists with little or no practical experience do.

MANY people do not. some alarmists with little or no practical experience do.

I would beg to differ. I heard a very respectable calibrator with tons of practical experience feel this way. he was even hired by few folks who hang around here in the high-end forum and Sim2 Thread in particular.

Sound aside, how about the picture? Many folks worry that these screens provide inferior picture quality.

MANY people do not. some alarmists with little or no practical experience do.

The Stewart Microperf is pretty highly regarded, and I'll add to that regard. for years I used a very nice Da-Lite solid screen, which worked very well with my Seleco CRT PJ at 1080i. When I moved to my current house, the Da-Lite came with me, and I used it until the Synthesis® install began. The JBL tech highly recommended getting an AT screen, and after some equivocation, I agreed.

At the same time I went with a Mitsubishi 1080p LCD projector, and I started to second-guess the decision due to the reported "moire problem." However, it was all for naught, as the screen performs marvelously and having the CC behind the screen really anchors the soundstage.

The StudioTek material is terrific in my totally light controlled room (no windows), and the picture is outstanding. Occasionally on very small lettering, like rolling credits, there's a bit of roughness on some scrolling letter edges, but I've never seen any issues with picture quality with this THX certified screen from my 12' seating position.

If I put my face up close, yes, I can discern the holes on bright backgrounds, but why would I do that?

Stewart quoted me a price of $3979 to replace the screen material only with the newer Microperf X2, but I'm not putting that kind of coin into solving a problem that I don't have.

As I recall, the Synthesis® calibration software had a profile for this screen. That's why I wondered if anyone had done a similar set up with Audessey.

I would beg to differ. I heard a very respectable calibrator with tons of practical experience feel this way. he was even hired by few folks who hang around here in the high-end forum and Sim2 Thread in particular.

You say you heard a calibrator, but you didnt say what you heard. Perhaps you could clarify that.

If you are saying he states current AT screen materials provide inferior PQ, lets get him in here so we can get his feet to the fire. Its total shite.

Stewart quoted me a price of $3979 to replace the screen material only with the newer Microperf X2, but I'm not putting that kind of coin into solving a problem that I don't have.

I understand that it may not be something you need, but the X2 certainly has some advantages.

You say you heard a calibrator, but you didnt say what you heard. Perhaps you could clarify that.

If you are saying he states current AT screen materials provide inferior PQ, lets get him in here so we can get his feet to the fire. Its total shite.

I didn't want to give his name without his permission, but he is well-known. Pretty sure you know him :)

I will talk to him and see if he wants to post. It would surely be interesting :)

The Stewart Microperf is pretty highly regarded, and I'll add to that regard. for years I used a very nice Da-Lite solid screen, which worked very well with my Seleco CRT PJ at 1080i. When I moved to my current house, the Da-Lite came with me, and I used it until the Synthesis® install began. The JBL tech highly recommended getting an AT screen, and after some equivocation, I agreed.

At the same time I went with a Mitsubishi 1080p LCD projector, and I started to second-guess the decision due to the reported "moire problem." However, it was all for naught, as the screen performs marvelously and having the CC behind the screen really anchors the soundstage.

The StudioTek material is terrific in my totally light controlled room (no windows), and the picture is outstanding. Occasionally on very small lettering, like rolling credits, there's a bit of roughness on some scrolling letter edges, but I've never seen any issues with picture quality with this THX certified screen from my 12' seating position.

If I put my face up close, yes, I can discern the holes on bright backgrounds, but why would I do that?

Stewart quoted me a price of $3979 to replace the screen material only with the newer Microperf X2, but I'm not putting that kind of coin into solving a problem that I don't have.

As I recall, the Synthesis® calibration software had a profile for this screen. That's why I wondered if anyone had done a similar set up with Audessey.

How about Screen Research? Theirs are ISF certified and more expensive I think.

screen research is very nice as well. there are some arguments to be made as to why it is better... however i would park them pretty firnly in the inaudible campground. (ie, and limitations can be compensated for) now if you are a bat, you would hate ANY AT screen. the simple fact is that the same physics that allow you to safely stare into the microwave while waiting for the popcorn to pop allow the sound to pass unmolested (ok, firmly within compansation range) through an AT screen.

And while a particular calibrator may not like them, that would be his opinion.

there are lots and lots of folks who have built theatres that are no holds barred and they chose AT. we can say that there is a trade off for having the sound come from the right place... but it is just no longer a valid observation in almost all cases.

Stewart, SMX, Screen Research, all make excellent products.

How about Screen Research? Theirs are ISF certified and more expensive I think.

well, if they are more expensive... they must be better. (and they are from france!)

:D

How about Screen Research? Theirs are ISF certified and more expensive I think.

Stewart Filmscreen is about 2.5 miles from my house, and I had the chance to see everything. Of course, I had to buy from a dealer, but I was happy with the treatment all the way around.

I have no experience with Screen Research, and I'm not likely to fly to their facility to get a feel for the company and its products. Maybe someday I'll see one in an installation.

I'm happy now; no need to look for something else at this time.

I didn't want to give his name without his permission, but he is well-known. Pretty sure you know him :)

I will talk to him and see if he wants to post. It would surely be interesting :)

OK. I am correcting myself. I just pmed him and he told me that I didn't interpret him correctly.

He is basically saying they have their merits for the right set up and do not necessarily negatively impact the picture. Even though they can if not set up correctly.

that is a pretty accurate statement.

but it is an accurate statement for most gear.

well, if they are more expensive... they must be better. (and they are from france!)

:D

I think theirs is the only ISF and THX-certified screen. I guess it is a safe bet to believe it should be as good as it gets. Or maybe I am being brand-oriented here (quite likely)

I didn't experience neither Stewart nor Screen Research first hand.

that is a pretty accurate statement.

but it is an accurate statement for most gear.

How can you disagree with a statement like that, right? well he said more, but I didn't want to share it in fear of saying something not accurate again :)

I don't think he wants to post here, so will leave it at that.

OK. I am correcting myself. I just pmed him and he told me that I didn't interpret him correctly.

He is basically saying they have their merits for the right set up and do not necessarily negatively impact the picture. Even though they can if not set up correctly.

Thats some serious lame ass retraction. Anything can be detrimental if not set up correctly. Thats like saying a Ferrari is not as fast when it has no fuel in it.

I'd also be interested in how you set up an AT screen. You just install it in the correct position. Perhaps hes saying that it effects the PQ if you install it in a position other than where the projector is pointed.:confused:

Thats some serious lame ass retraction. Anything can be detrimental if not set up correctly. Thats like saying a Ferrari is not as fast when it has no fuel in it.

I'd also be interested in how you set up an AT screen. You just install it in the correct position. Perhaps hes saying that it effects the PQ if you install it in a position other than where the projector is pointed.:confused:

No. I don't think he is retracting. It was me who misunderstood and put some words into his mouth that he never intended. It was part of a casual conversation. Can happen.

Well, I will say it. I didn't think the Stewart was all that great when I saw it at Cedia. As the Stewart guy told me, if you get far enough back then you don't see the perfs. I was at about eight feet already. SMX was the first time I thought that at screens were there. I am not sure about the effects on sound quality, but SMX wipes the floor with Stewart. I even thought Chris Seymour's screen was better than Stewarts.

Well, I will say it. I didn't think the Stewart was all that great when I saw it at Cedia. As the Stewart guy told me, if you get far enough back then you don't see the perfs. I was at about eight feet already. SMX was the first time I thought that at screens were there. I am not sure about the effects on sound quality, but SMX wipes the floor with Stewart. I even thought Chris Seymour's screen was better than Stewarts.

The fact that perfs are visible at any given distance is not an issue in itself, that simply limits it to a minimum size of application. On my own screens the perfs are invisible way before the seating distance.

Can you explain, and hopefully quantify, how the SMX wipes the floor in terms of PQ. Here are some areas of interest.....

1. Color saturation

2. ANSI CR

3. Moire

4. Resolution effects

If floors are being wiped, it sounds like there has been a major technical breakthrough that unaware of. I'm very interested indeed.

Here is an example of the microperf X2 on a 14ft scree, taken close up.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1106210&highlight=italian&page=8

is it true these AT screens carry low gain characteristics and require high-light output?

is it true these AT screens carry low gain characteristics and require high-light output?

No its not true. Its been covered many times before. A quick search should provide all you need to know.

Their gain is listed correctly, as with any other material.

Microperf X2 reduces gain by around 10%. ST130 will be around 1.15.

no.

this seems to be devolving into a contest of accusations without proof and suppositions with no information.

facts are thus...
1. a perf screen has a slightly lower gain than a non-perfed screen of the same material due to the fact that there is less screen. but only marginally less. this is likely to be unnoticeable with the eye since we see logarithmically (sp)
2. a speaker in a reflective cabinet positioned 6' back from the screen would have all sorts of issues. but since that would never happen... it is a moot point.
3. Stewart, SMX and Screen research all have different strengths and weaknesses as do all. and they all have different connotations associated with them due to a variety of reasons. the earlier comment of SMX wiping the floor with Stewart is a great example.

If you have questions about screens, please go to the screen forum so that
a. you will get more comprehensive info
b. the pile on will be equal from all sides i would guess
c. we do not devolve this particular forum (and thread about audessey calibration) farther than we normally do.

:D

The fact that perfs are visible at any given distance is not an issue in itself, that simply limits it to a minimum size of application. On my own screens the perfs are invisible way before the seating distance.

Can you explain, and hopefully quantify, how the SMX wipes the floor in terms of PQ. Here are some areas of interest.....

1. Color saturation

2. ANSI CR

3. Moire

4. Resolution effects

If floors are being wiped, it sounds like there has been a major technical breakthrough that unaware of. I'm very interested indeed.

Here is an example of the microperf X2 on a 14ft scree, taken close up.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1106210&highlight=italian&page=8

Yea, my experience hanging a very large SMX sample in my theater was that that Stewart material had a better image overall. Of course, relatively speaking, you can't beat the bang for the buck side of SMX.

In my application, the perfs disappear long before pixel visibility:

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p146/CarlosMeat/Focus08a.jpg

Art

no.

this seems to be devolving into a contest of accusations without proof and suppositions with no information.

there was no accusation, I was only asking.

You are correct about lack of information. That was why I asked. I wouldn't be asking if I had all the information in the first place.

But you are right about diversion. I will stop.

i was not specifically referring to you.

Not really. I still use Audyssey, and promote it, if that is what people want. However, if someone is willing to pay for the extra time and effort, I am willing and able to do it without the use of Audyssey. There is no crime or abhoration in using it, and Audyssey has done more to promote good sounding rooms than any other company. I guess the moral here is that Audyssey is not the magic bullet. It does not replace the need for proper design, seating and speaker positioning, and treatment, and Audyssey will not say otherwise. It can be, or is, just another piece in the puzzle to use jamin's analogy. I wouldn't be embarassed in using it. Not in the least. What most are saying is that it CAN be better if you have the right person at the helm.

Hi Shawn,

I'd like to return to the topic of this thread, Audyssey professional calibration.

Assuming your client has gone as far as he/she can to deal with room design, seating, speaker positioning, etc., as practical considerations (budget, aesthetics, etc.) will permit, and he/she has an Audyssey Pro-ready AVR/Prepro, would you ever recommend a different room correction approach than an Audyssey Pro calibration? In other words, for example do you believe it is possible for you to perform a more accurate room correction by using the simple parametric equalizer that is also available on many AVR/Prepros?

The reason I ask is that there is a respected professional calibrator on these forums that claims to do a better job in audio calibration by ignoring the consumer version of Audyssey calibration and manually using the simple parametric equalizer that is built into the AVR/Prepro. Obviously, the calibrator has his array of test gear to assist, but since in the best of cases the parametric equalizer has no more than 15-bands of equalization versus Audyssey which has hundreds of control points per channel, one can not help being skeptical about the claims of superior calibration if accuracy is the goal.

I can understand if a client has strong personal preferences regarding how something should sound, then a manual parametric equalizer in the hands of a professional has some advantages over the consumer version of Audyssey correction which makes no provisions for personal preference adjustments. However, if the client has an Audyssey Pro-ready AVR/Prepro, with vastly superior resolution and the ability to provide custom target curves, I can't ever envision a situation where manual calibration with a built-in parametric equalizer would be a superior approach, regardless of whether personal preference or accuracy was the goal.

Do you agree, and can you share your views on this subject?

Thanks.

Larry

The fact that perfs are visible at any given distance is not an issue in itself, that simply limits it to a minimum size of application. On my own screens the perfs are invisible way before the seating distance.

Can you explain, and hopefully quantify, how the SMX wipes the floor in terms of PQ. Here are some areas of interest.....

1. Color saturation

2. ANSI CR

3. Moire

4. Resolution effects

If floors are being wiped, it sounds like there has been a major technical breakthrough that unaware of. I'm very interested indeed.

Here is an example of the microperf X2 on a 14ft scree, taken close up.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1106210&highlight=italian&page=8

You may be correct, but then what is the minimum distance for the Stewart screen? Ask Darin, I was ready to trash the SMX screen, but I was pleasantly surprised as I believe Darin was as well.

As for your criteria:
1) I am not sure. Send a sample to UMR, as he just tested a bunch of screens.
2) I would rather see a MTF test. Send a sample to tse and see if he will test it.
3) I don't remember seeing any moire issues in my demos at Cedia.
4) I have no idea what you are talking about regarding resolution effects.

I won't continue this in the Audyssey thread, but did want to give my opinion on at screens. Do I think the Stewart is a bad screen? No, but I do think the new SMX is much better.

OK, as you will not be posting further it would be inappropriate to go into detail and deconstruct that reply.

Suffice to say, on the technical points listed, or any other area, you provided nothing to substantiate your earlier claims of floor wiping.

The fact that you made your earlier,floor wiping, declaration is, in itself, ill informed. When based on 2 different demos, separated by time and space, using different signal chains, that says all that needs be said.

Now, i agree, lets get back OT

Hi Shawn,

I'd like to return to the topic of this thread, Audyssey professional calibration.

Assuming your client has gone as far as he/she can to deal with room design, seating, speaker positioning, etc., as practical considerations (budget, aesthetics, etc.) will permit, and he/she has an Audyssey Pro-ready AVR/Prepro, would you ever recommend a different room correction approach than an Audyssey Pro calibration? In other words, for example do you believe it is possible for you to perform a more accurate room correction by using the simple parametric equalizer that is also available on many AVR/Prepros?

The reason I ask is that there is a respected professional calibrator on these forums that claims to do a better job in audio calibration by ignoring the consumer version of Audyssey calibration and manually using the simple parametric equalizer that is built into the AVR/Prepro. Obviously, the calibrator has his array of test gear to assist, but since in the best of cases the parametric equalizer has no more than 15-bands of equalization versus Audyssey which has hundreds of control points per channel, one can not help being skeptical about the claims of superior calibration if accuracy is the goal.

I can understand if a client has strong personal preferences regarding how something should sound, then a manual parametric equalizer in the hands of a professional has some advantages over the consumer version of Audyssey correction which makes no provisions for personal preference adjustments. However, if the client has an Audyssey Pro-ready AVR/Prepro, with vastly superior resolution and the ability to provide custom target curves, I can't ever envision a situation where manual calibration with a built-in parametric equalizer would be a superior approach, regardless of whether personal preference or accuracy was the goal.

Do you agree, and can you share your views on this subject?

Thanks.

Larry

Hi Larry,

I honestly can not speak intelligently with the use of on-board parametric EQ's. I have never used one. I messed with a B&K receiver that had one just to see what the resolution was which was 1/3 of an octave. Some may be good, but I would be inclined to say that on-board EQ's on most receiver's or pre/pro's just don't have the resolution you would like since you really want to find that center frequency if possible.

If your receiver is Audyssey Pro capable, I personally would prefer to see that used than the on-board, but it just all depends on which direction money wise you want to go...and if you're lucky. The positive about Audyssey is that it is quite good at what it does provided you have someone who understands exactly what they are doing with it, but the negative is that you are limited on how much "control" you have.

Regarding target curves, most of the choices you have in Audyssey can be achieved through a shelf filter, which most have on-board and those do work, or a natural roll-off. I find the default target curve usually the best choice and so do most of the people I service.