The Science of the Room with Paul Hales - Page 6 - AVS Forum
First ... 4  5  6
AVS Forum Podcasts > The Science of the Room with Paul Hales
bd2003's Avatar bd2003 04:31 PM 07-23-2013
Geez, that XT graph is like a crime against humanity. No wonder it sounded so bad. It seems to have more than enough resolution to do as good of a job as XT32 though. EQ doesn't need that kind of resolution when averaged over a wide area. It's unfortunate that the affordable versions are worse than useless though.

A pretty convincing display of why not to use audyssey IMO....but it does appear like the XT32 graph is more smoothed than the XT.

imagic's Avatar imagic 04:36 PM 07-23-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

I don't really know. I know that multieq was better than when my receiver had mutlieq off. I know that xt32 is categorically better to my ears than both multieq and having it off.

You can hypothesize that the reason me/audyssey fans hear an improvement in sound is that the low end has improved enough that having it 'on' is better than having it 'off' perceptually, but it would be just that, a hypothesis.

I don't understand why you keep talking about marketing hype - frankly all I've seen is audyssey 'bashing'. And if it wasn't for sdurani, I wouldn't have seen anything even attempting a scientific approach to it here.

What's ironic to me is that when I made my way into the audyssey thread with an issue, I started to get treated as an audyssey basher by one of the clergy there, but I come into threads like these and talk about how as an overall experience, audyssey has been good to me, and I get treated like I am advocating some marketying hype - i've never seen any real marketing claiming a perfect solution - i'm not sure I even saw any audyssey marketing until after I owned it even.

I'm getting too excited about this, it's true. Audyssey says this about MultEQ XT32:

"Our newest and most accurate room correction solution with more than ten thousand individual control points allowing finer details of the room’s problems to be captured and corrected. The ultra high resolution filters are applied to all channels including the subwoofers, with the most obvious benefit being heard in the low frequency range where correction is needed the most."
mo949's Avatar mo949 05:27 PM 07-23-2013
ok cool. yes, I have seen that actually. I've heard it too. In my system its my poorly placed surrounds and sub that I hear all the benefits in.

Not being hip on the lingo, I've always thought of Audyssey as an automated EQ system and I like automated. Automated is never as good as manual tweaking/perfection in general I understand.
randyc1's Avatar randyc1 05:36 PM 07-23-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

I'll take you at your word, it sounds like a step in the right direction....but do you see the irony here? People are raving about how much better XT32 sounds....but it sounds better because its doing less correction to the mids and highs.

They had the opportunity to use the more advanced correction to do what XT did to a more extreme degree, but instead did a 180. And I'd bet if they applied the same methodology to XT and standard MultEQ, they would probably sound just as good as XT32. You don't need 16x the filter resolution as XT if you're limiting the majority of your corrections to the bottom 1/3rd of the scale. Maybe with XT64, they won't do any correction over 250hz at all, and people will be even more amazed at how much better it sounds! tongue.gif

I wonder if they'll ever update MultEQ and XT to not do as much damage....it'll probably make XT32 seem kind of pointless. All I know is I'll never consider a receiver with audyssey in it until you can manually set it to correct low frequencies only.

I agree with what you have said , and are there Any recievers which you can manually set ?

For now with my older Yamaha reciever , i just use it without EQ , and use Anti-mode to EQ up to 250hz with the Subs
sdurani's Avatar sdurani 06:04 PM 07-23-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Nothing magical about it.
You're erecting a strawman only to knock it down, considering no one claimed that Audyssey was "magical".
imagic's Avatar imagic 06:21 PM 07-23-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

You're erecting a strawman only to knock it down, considering no one claimed that Audyssey was "magical".

Sorry, I meant "proprietary algorithms"
bd2003's Avatar bd2003 06:42 PM 07-23-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

You're erecting a strawman only to knock it down, considering no one claimed that Audyssey was "magical".

Whether or not anyone in this specific thread is going there, I've often seen supernatural attributes assigned to it in many places (including the audyssey thread on AVS).
mo949's Avatar mo949 06:58 PM 07-23-2013
Ok, I think I fully understand the AVS Newsbreaker spin now.

I'll leave you to your 'magical' room science thread.
sdurani's Avatar sdurani 07:02 PM 07-23-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

I've often seen supernatural attributes assigned to it in many places (including the audyssey thread on AVS).
Since you've seen them so often and in so many places, link to some quotes supporting your claim.

BTW, Audyssey detractors make dramatic comments as well, even likening it to "a crime against humanity".
bd2003's Avatar bd2003 07:09 PM 07-23-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Since you've seen them so often and in so many places, link to some quotes supporting your claim.

BTW, Audyssey detractors make dramatic comments as well, even likening it to "a crime against humanity".

Meh, I don't have anything to prove. That's the impression I got from visiting the audyssey thread on and off.
bd2003's Avatar bd2003 07:21 PM 07-23-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

Ok, I think I fully understand the AVS Newsbreaker spin now.

I'll leave you to your 'magical' room science thread.

Just so we're clear, my opinion in no way has anything to do with any sort of official AVS stance on audyssey. It's merely my personal opinion, nothing more....that imagic happens to share it is pure coincidence.
bd2003's Avatar bd2003 07:37 PM 07-23-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by randyc1 View Post

I agree with what you have said , and are there Any recievers which you can manually set ?

For now with my older Yamaha reciever , i just use it without EQ , and use Anti-mode to EQ up to 250hz with the Subs

I believe the receivers with trinnov allow you to EQ the low frequencies only. Anthem receivers let you choose the min and max EQ settings, and the tighter you squeeze it, the more accuracy there is within the smaller range. Pioneer's MCACC has a sub-only standing wave EQ (probably similar to yamaha's anti-mode?), but the EQ for the speakers isnt nearly sophisticated enough. I'm sure there are others out there.
randyc1's Avatar randyc1 08:02 PM 07-23-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by randyc1 View Post

I agree with what you have said , and are there Any recievers which you can manually set ?

For now with my older Yamaha reciever , i just use it without EQ , and use Anti-mode to EQ up to 250hz with the Subs

I believe the receivers with trinnov allow you to EQ the low frequencies only. Anthem receivers let you choose the min and max EQ settings, and the tighter you squeeze it, the more accuracy there is within the smaller range. Pioneer's MCACC has a sub-only standing wave EQ (probably similar to yamaha's anti-mode?), but the EQ for the speakers isnt nearly sophisticated enough. I'm sure there are others out there.

The Anti -Mode is'nt from Yamaha ,it's a small seperate unit that is used mainly to EQ Subs .
bd2003's Avatar bd2003 08:13 PM 07-23-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by randyc1 View Post

The Anti -Mode is'nt from Yamaha ,it's a small seperate unit that is used mainly to EQ Subs .

Ahh right, I thought that sounded familiar. If you can use it on your speakers as well, I'd say you don't really need it in the receiver. Otherwise, look at other options, or wait until next year and cross your fingers that audyssey has a more flexible implementation of all flavors of MultEQ. I personally really dig Anthem receivers, but they start at $1K, and I believe the current line is overdue for a refresh...so kind of hard to make a solid recommendation.
sdurani's Avatar sdurani 09:39 PM 07-23-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

I don't have anything to prove.
So not even one "often seen" quote to support your assertion? Understood.
First ... 4  5  6

Up
Mobile  Desktop