Dayton OmniMic Precision Measurement System - Page 31 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #901 of 2090 Old 10-06-2011, 05:05 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

Depends on the freq, IOW it's the width in octaves, not Hz, that's importance.

We don't hear something if it;s width is less than a fraction of an octave.

I forget what the fraction is; 1/6th I think.

+1 good way of explaining it. I think it also correlates back to why measurements have 1/6th octave smoothing.

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #902 of 2090 Old 10-06-2011, 05:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundofMind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SE MI
Posts: 7,962
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

... I had both the 4311 and the AVP-A1 - from a subwoofer perspective, the SubEQ HT in the 4311 was better than manually tweaking either Denon unit because they did not have tools for this...So while there are other non eq benefits for something like Omnimic, a big benefit in my estimation is tied to whether or not you system has a good eq system to leverage what it tells you.

Exactly. This is why I found that combining a 4311/A100 (about 1.5K) with Audyssey Pro (an additional .7K for kit+license) a great combo at a very attractive price. Pro's "Before" curves can be used to guide speaker and sub placement. By doing minimum 3 mic positions and deleting any speakers not crucial to the measurement, this can be done much faster than a full calibration, though certainly not as quickly as with OmniMic. Pro adds a considerable degree of EQ customization/tweaking. It ranks the crossovers based on optimal in-room performance then loads filters specific to your choice. It allows choice of several target curves, which can then be further customized. It makes a considrable difference in SQ IME.

Yes, I still like playing with Dalis.

SoundofMind is offline  
post #903 of 2090 Old 10-06-2011, 05:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,574
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 540 Post(s)
Liked: 1261
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post



Your sub is working up to 500 Hz?

No - I was just answering Bill's question as to how high it is off the floor. Not sure what he was getting at.

Kind Regards,

Keith

EDIT: I misunderstood Bill I think - he was referring to the woofer in my mains I think. The answer to that question is about 20 inches off the floor. Still not sure what the significance is though.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #904 of 2090 Old 10-06-2011, 05:45 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,574
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 540 Post(s)
Liked: 1261
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I'm going to go way out on a limb here, but I think Keith may have something positive to say about the AS-EQ1 .

Haha. Oh yes. It is the single best piece of equipment I have ever added to my system and the one that has the biggest impact on SQ. Have I mentioned this before?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I had an XT AVR (4308CI) with the AS-EQ1, and now have the 4311, so I have been able to compare. Assuming budget is not the deciding factor, the SubEQ HT technology in the 4311 provides identical functionality as the AS-EQ1. In addition, XT32 has much higher resolution filters for the mid and high frequencies. So, the 4311 will deliver the better sound quality solution overall.

Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

On the other hand, if you went with the used AS-EQ1, it will hold it's resale value in case you change your mind. And it's a great product. Keith?

Absolutely. Revolutionised the bass in my system at a stroke.

Kind Regards,

Keith
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #905 of 2090 Old 10-07-2011, 09:19 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,574
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 540 Post(s)
Liked: 1261
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I'm in the same boat as Keith. I just spent $1,000 on installing RealTraps bass traps, and am somewhat clueless with regards to measuring the improvement. While I use REW instead of OmniMic, the two products have similar tools for analysis. I can generate frequency response graphs, RT60 plots, and waterfall graphs, but I need someone to walk me through the before and after graphs to help me understand the differences.


AJ - these articles I recently found helped me with some basic understandings - and the links in them take you to interesting places too. Worth a read.

http://www.hifizine.com/2011/06/bass...-guide-part-1/

http://www.hifizine.com/2011/09/bass...-guide-part-2/

http://redspade-audio.blogspot.com/2...waterfall.html

The author uses REW as well, so this will be especially relevant to you I think.

Kind Regards,

Keith
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #906 of 2090 Old 10-07-2011, 09:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,125
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:


Originally Posted by thrang
... I had both the 4311 and the AVP-A1 - from a subwoofer perspective, the SubEQ HT in the 4311 was better than manually tweaking either Denon unit because they did not have tools for this...So while there are other non eq benefits for something like Omnimic, a big benefit in my estimation is tied to whether or not you system has a good eq system to leverage what it tells you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Exactly. This is why I found that combining a 4311/A100 (about 1.5K) with Audyssey Pro (an additional .7K for kit+license) a great combo at a very attractive price. Pro's "Before" curves can be used to guide speaker and sub placement. By doing minimum 3 mic positions and deleting any speakers not crucial to the measurement, this can be done much faster than a full calibration, though certainly not as quickly as with OmniMic. Pro adds a considerable degree of EQ customization/tweaking. It ranks the crossovers based on optimal in-room performance then loads filters specific to your choice. It allows choice of several target curves, which can then be further customized. It makes a considrable difference in SQ IME.

But please don't omit my next line:

Quote:


With the Classe, there are full parametric eq controls for the sub channels, so I am able to achieve a better soundfield than I was with Auydessy.

thrang is online now  
post #907 of 2090 Old 10-07-2011, 03:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 7,582
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Whatever "better soundfield" means.

Correct spelling = Audyssey.
Gary J is offline  
post #908 of 2090 Old 10-07-2011, 05:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,125
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

Whatever "better soundfield" means.

Correct spelling = Audyssey.

Ok, just BETTER!

So what I mean is the eq sounds very natural, the soundstage is very immersive, and the sub integration is fantastic - all comprising a better soundfield than I could render even with Audyssey Pro, SubEQ HT and far too many calibration attempts....Too often the low end was thin and the highs were harsh with Audyssey, or at least what the Denon and Audyssey could do together.


Blame muscle relaxant and typing on the iPad for misspelling Audyssey!
thrang is online now  
post #909 of 2090 Old 10-07-2011, 06:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 7,582
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 86
In other words to a Preference rather than a Reference target curve. In that case what purpose OmniMic serve? Measurements are meaningless when tweaking to a Preference based on how it sounds to you.
Gary J is offline  
post #910 of 2090 Old 10-07-2011, 07:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,125
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

In other words to a Preference rather than a Reference target curve. In that case what purpose OmniMic serve? Measurements are meaningless when tweaking to a Preference based on how it sounds to you.

I presume your basis is Audyssey gets it right (reference) without question - not sure I could agree with that based on my experiences.

I don't want to create a protracted debate here, but while I think Audyssey can be good, and possibly better than nothing - it is not nirvana, and consistently made EQ changes that in opposite directions of what should have been done (based on subsequent measurements).

In using the parametric EQ of the Classe and the Omnimic to adjust speaker positions and FR to follow a fairly common curve (slight bump in the lower third, roughly a -3db rolloff), I've been able to generate a soundfield unmatched by the Audyssey Pro implementations in either the AVP-A1 or 4311.

Now, how much of that is related to the Denon HW its impossible to say
thrang is online now  
post #911 of 2090 Old 10-07-2011, 07:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,125
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

In other words to a Preference rather than a Reference target curve. In that case what purpose OmniMic serve? Measurements are meaningless when tweaking to a Preference based on how it sounds to you.

Also, I'd say that not including your ears (preference) in the final analysis is not a good approach.

You can use a measurement system and dial in to a particular curve, but critical listening may reveal the need to adjust certain parameters that equipment does not guide you to do. Trusting your ears (and eyes) in the final analysis is very important IMHO. And a good parametric EQ makes changing those parameters extremely easy.

While Pro lets you edit the curve (why does Audyssey give you the option to tweak away from reference anyway?), it is very time consuming and cumbersome to make changes, upload, listen, and repeat.
thrang is online now  
post #912 of 2090 Old 10-07-2011, 09:44 PM
Senior Member
 
RDKing2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ventura County, Ca.
Posts: 365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

In other words to a Preference rather than a Reference target curve. In that case what purpose OmniMic serve? Measurements are meaningless when tweaking to a Preference based on how it sounds to you.

This make no sense to me? Adjusting a parametric without having a visual is taking a shot in the dark. I set a baseline curve, then tweak to my preference. A flat response has never sounded good to my ears.

I have an AS-EQ1 and it made my DIY Ultras response very flat. The bottom end is what I would call lifeless with out further adjustments.
RDKing2 is offline  
post #913 of 2090 Old 10-08-2011, 04:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

In other words to a Preference rather than a Reference target curve. In that case what purpose OmniMic serve? Measurements are meaningless when tweaking to a Preference based on how it sounds to you.

FWIW, I think Audyssey is useless without the "pro" version for my setup. I think all "black box" auto EQing systems get the bass curve wrong, they ignore equal loudness curves and the "black box" functions/calibrations are set based on one set of parameters (not always accurate ones). Remember all ears are different. To run it and accept its curve is fine but flat in room is not an accurate response curve at all. No reason to debate it here, this isn't the thread for that discussion. There are several threads out there that have talk about flat curves and accuracy.

The end goal of any setup is for it to match what the owner of the setup wants..."Black box" tells people they should accept "Brand X". Those with more tools go beyond accepting any brand.

Also do not understand why you would post measurements are meaningless when setting any specific curve Actually everyone do any measurement is doing them to know what problems they have in room and solving them.

Again, the ONLY reason for meaurements is to provide accurate measurements of our speakers and rooms. The mountain of data measurements can provide can then help us make very educated decisions on what to tweak or change.

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #914 of 2090 Old 10-08-2011, 04:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 7,582
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

Also, I'd say that not including your ears (preference) in the final analysis is not a good approach.

You can use a measurement system and dial in to a particular curve, but critical listening may reveal the need to adjust certain parameters that equipment does not guide you to do. Trusting your ears (and eyes) in the final analysis is very important IMHO. And a good parametric EQ makes changing those parameters extremely easy.

I am not getting what "a fairly common curve" or slight bump in the "lower third" (of what?) is but per my question it seems the measurement system is not used for much. What I really do not get is the "trusting your ears" part. From the pics it appears yours is not a one person HT so apparently you mean your ears? What about everyone else's in the room? They should trust your ears also? This is what I don't get as opposed to going with a baseline of a target curve based on research that has shown to be pleasing across a broader spectrum of listeners. It seems to me getting as close as you can to a target curve that is based on decades of research is likely to be more pleasing to a variety of people than what one person has decided is pleasing through a series of parametric EQ changes. Of course a one person HT would be an entirely different matter.
Gary J is offline  
post #915 of 2090 Old 10-08-2011, 05:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,125
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post


I am not getting what "a fairly common curve" or slight bump in the "lower third" (of what?) is but per my question it seems the measurement system is not used for much. What I really do not get is the "trusting your ears" part. From the pics it appears yours is not a one person HT so apparently you mean your ears? What about everyone else's in the room? They should trust your ears also? This is what I don't get as opposed to going with a baseline of a target curve based on research that has shown to be pleasing across a broader spectrum of listeners. It seems to me getting as close as you can to a target curve that is based on decades of research is likely to be more pleasing to a variety of people than what one person has decided is pleasing through a series of parametric EQ changes. Of course a one person HT would be an entirely different matter.

Audyssey does nothing magical for multiple seating positions - whatever adjustments it makes to a waveform is identical for all listeners - it cannot shape or direct different waveforms at the same time to different areas of the room - any implication by Audyssey or it's users in this regard is nonsense.

So the most it could do is average multiple listening positions, which could be useful. With an external measurement system, you can also choose to take multiple samples and use the results to averaging. But I would surmise that a system that exhibits a wide sweet spot vs a narrower one has to do with the dispersion characteristics of the speaker more than anything.

The external measurement system is extensively in a manual approach, not sure where you could not see that. I would estimate that using a measurement system and software to assess and adjust the FR spectrum and SPL for all speakers can get you 90 to 95 of the way there.

But not understanding the trusting your ears part? I think you will find most respected calibrators would tell you the same thing. Your ears are by far the most sensitive device you will ever own, and can reveal audible issues in the last 5 or 10% that would be nearly impossible to asses with clinical measurement alone.

Reference is just another target curve, and is not ideal for all scenarios. An imperfect analogy, but even great chefs cooking with painstakingly sophisticated recipes, still taste along way and, (this used to be my tag line here), "salt to taste..."
thrang is online now  
post #916 of 2090 Old 10-08-2011, 05:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,125
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

FWIW, I think Audyssey is useless without the "pro" version for my setup. I think all "black box" auto EQing systems get the bass curve wrong, they ignore equal loudness curves and the "black box" functions/calibrations are set based on one set of parameters (not always accurate ones). Remember all ears are different. To run it and accept its curve is fine but flat in room is not an accurate response curve at all. No reason to debate it here, this isn't the thread for that discussion. There are several threads out there that have talk about flat curves and accuracy.

The end goal of any setup is for it to match what the owner of the setup wants..."Black box" tells people they should accept "Brand X". Those with more tools go beyond accepting any brand.

Also do not understand why you would post measurements are meaningless when setting any specific curve Actually everyone do any measurement is doing them to know what problems they have in room and solving them.

Again, the ONLY reason for meaurements is to provide accurate measurements of our speakers and rooms. The mountain of data measurements can provide can then help us make very educated decisions on what to tweak or change.

I agree, and one of the reasons the pro version is the one that has some value is it essentially let's you adjust, on a per channel basis, the "target curve" - it's an inelegant peq, but if one doesn't have a quality peq in their system, pro at least gives you some capability in this area.
thrang is online now  
post #917 of 2090 Old 10-08-2011, 05:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 7,582
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Agreed, Audyssey adjusts to a "listening area". A good approach IMO.

But what about my real point? With parametric EQ you are salting to your taste. What about others in the room? What about research that shows some target curves (and Audyssey is not the only one) can provide a "greater good" for all? I'll bet that chef is really striving to salt to what his experience says is everyone's taste in general. He is trying to hit that target curve.
Gary J is offline  
post #918 of 2090 Old 10-08-2011, 05:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,125
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

Agreed, Audyssey adjusts to a "listening area". A good approach IMO.

But what about my real point? With parametric EQ you are salting to your taste. What about others in the room? What about research that shows some target curves (and Audyssey is not the only one) can provide a "greater good" for all? I'll bet that chef is really striving to salt to what his experience says is everyone's taste in general. He is trying to hit that target curve.

I dont think we are disagreeing on many of the principals, but my point is that in my experiences audyssey doesn't do this nearly as well as the marketing claims.

The point is if you have a good peq and a good measurement system you can achieve better results. Audyssey made some really dumb decisions in the countless calibration sessions I've conducted, and if it were in the name of a larger sweet spot, it missed the boat.

The audyssey thread is a testament to this. For everyone that is completely satisfied, there are many more then complain about what it does to their sound, and the very finicky nature of the measurement process. The fact that there are no in room "after" measurement graphs is also interesting.

Bottom line, if it works and you are happy, that's all that matters. I tried for years, on two different systems, always using pro, and while I got it better at times, I was ultimately not satisfied with the soundfield. That's my ears talking...

Went for the classe, both for its overall sound quality, and sophisticated peq. It was the right choice.

So what do you use the omnimic for?
thrang is online now  
post #919 of 2090 Old 10-08-2011, 06:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 7,582
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post


So what do you use the omnimic for?

I don't. Still trying to figure out why I should. I am a chef trying to salt to more tastes than just my own.
Gary J is offline  
post #920 of 2090 Old 10-08-2011, 06:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,125
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

I don't.


Ohhhhhh...what processor do you use, and does it have a peq?
thrang is online now  
post #921 of 2090 Old 10-08-2011, 06:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundofMind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SE MI
Posts: 7,962
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

But please don't omit my next line:
With the Classe, there are full parametric eq controls for the sub channels, so I am able to achieve a better soundfield than I was with Auydessy.

My apology. Classe is not in the budget for most of us. Your experience comparing top-of-the line equipment is very interesting. I'm unfamiliar with the manual EQ capability of the Classe, or the the Denon AVP for that matter, but all the Denons I've had are equipped with basic graphic, not parametric, EQ and thus were woefully inadequate for the task of dealing with my untreated family roomHT, especially in the bass region.

Also, my post was in the context of the discussion about measuring tools and/or EQ tools. I was pointing out what I consider a high value, relatively simple solution at reasonable cost: a $2K MSRP AVR (street $1.5K) and pro kit ($.7K). That combo provides some measuring capability, reasonable customization of powerful RC EQ and a fairly quick route to overall very good SQ IME. I forgot to mention that Denon's unique Network "Save" and "Load" feature does allow comparisons of various Pro curves, different crossovers, customized curves, etc., by simply reloading any such saved calibration file and does that in under 10 minutes. I've posted about this on the Pro thread. Not the under 10 second ideal for A/B, but workable for the HT enthusiast with time on his hands for tweaking. I'm now in a listening/enjoying phase so sent my OmniMic back within the trial/return period. If I decide to do room treatments or speaker rearranging, I'll reconsider investing the $ and learning effort into a stand-alone measurement system like that.

Yes, I still like playing with Dalis.

SoundofMind is offline  
post #922 of 2090 Old 10-08-2011, 07:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,574
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 540 Post(s)
Liked: 1261
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

The point is if you have a good peq and a good measurement system you can achieve better results.

The significant word there is 'if'. Most people don't. Audyssey MutlEQ was created for the masses - people who want to buy an AVR and have it working pretty well in a half hour. That's why various flavours of MultEQ are found in even budget AVRs. It's an unfair comparison to compare Audyssey with highly sophisticated measuring and control systems that the vast majority don't own (or indeed, want). Within its design parameters, Audyssey does a superb job for most of the people who run it. But it is just a tool - and clearly there will be superior tools, at greater cost and suitable only for those who have the skill, patience or knowledge to use them. Even the Pro system costs relatively little compared with the Classé!

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

The audyssey thread is a testament to this. For everyone that is completely satisfied, there are many more then complain about what it does to their sound,

Generally, that is because they haven't followed the setup procedure properly. Not always, but usually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

and the very finicky nature of the measurement process.

It's not so much finicky as precise. You do have to follow the setup guide instructions very precisely, it is true. A lot don't, hence the issues they discover. Audyssey setup is barely more 'finicky' than the time and effort involved in using REW or Omnimic!

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

The fact that there are no in room "after" measurement graphs is also interesting.

I think the lack of 'after' graphs is down to the AVR manufacturer. Audyssey provides such graphs with the AS-EQ1 and Audyssey Pro.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

Bottom line, if it works and you are happy, that's all that matters. I tried for years, on two different systems, always using pro, and while I got it better at times, I was ultimately not satisfied with the soundfield. That's my ears talking...

That is a perfectly valid conclusion of course. Ultimately, a guy pays for his system and he has a 100% right to make it sound any way he wants it to sound.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

Went for the classe, both for its overall sound quality, and sophisticated peq. It was the right choice.

You would surely agree though that Classé is beyond the reach of most people - Audyssey isn't. The comparison just seems to me to be apples and oranges.

Kind Regards,

Keith
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #923 of 2090 Old 10-08-2011, 07:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundofMind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SE MI
Posts: 7,962
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 158
edit: I hadn't read Keith's eloquent post above when typing this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

...The audyssey thread is a testament to this. For everyone that is completely satisfied, there are many more then complain about what it does to their sound, and the very finicky nature of the measurement process. The fact that there are no in room "after" measurement graphs is also interesting...

Well we're OT but let's keep in mind that these threads select for those who have problems with gear and are dissatisfied with results. Many Audyssey users never post as they have no complaint, have never heard better than the SQ they get with Audyssey, or just don't care about HT SQ the way we do. And of course, the threads attract a few folks who seem to like arguing and hearing themselves post (present company excluded). I attribute much casual-user Audyssey dissatisfaction to lack of user experience, not following instructions, odd gear and/or preference for non-reference EQ.

But then there are a few sophisticated serious fellows, like yourself, generally with good gear and rooms, who for reasons I respect, critique one aspect or another of Audyssey and may ultimately opt for a different method. These guys tend to be uncompromising in their search for audio nirvana (I mean that as a complement) and that's fine. If I decided to place my Dali Helicons in a dedicated music/HT room with acoustic treatments and put $10K worth of electronics upstream, I might be in that camp as well. But there's lots of guys like me who find Audyssey, with its quirks, a good path to a reasonable HT solution. And to my ears fully implemented Audyssey (XT32 plus Pro) is by far the best Audyssey solution.

Yes, I still like playing with Dalis.

SoundofMind is offline  
post #924 of 2090 Old 10-08-2011, 07:45 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,574
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 540 Post(s)
Liked: 1261
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

edit: I hadn't read Keith's eloquent post above when typing this...



Well we're OT but let's keep in mind that these threads select for those who have problems with gear and are dissatisfied with results. Many Audyssey users never post as they have no complaint, have never heard better than the SQ they get with Audyssey, or just don't care about HT SQ the way we do. And of course, the threads attact a few folks who seem to like arguing and hearing themselves post. I attribute much casual-user Audyssey dissatisfaction to lack of user experience, not following instructions, odd gear and/or preference for non-reference EQ.

But then there are a few sophisticated serious fellows, like yourself, generally with good gear and rooms, who for reasons I respect, critique one aspect or another of Audyssey and may ultimately opt for a different method. These guys tend to be uncompromising in their search for audio nirvana (I mean that as a complement) and that's fine. If I decided to place my Dali Helicons in a dedicated music/HT room with acoustic treatments and put $10K worth of electronics upstream, I might be in that camp as well. But there's lots of guys like me who find Audyssey, with its quirks, a good path to a reasonable HT solution. And to my ears fully implemented Audyssey (XT32 plus Pro) is by far the best Audyssey solution.

I agree entirely. It's easy for us to get 'carried away' by our enthusiasm for our hobby but we need to remember, sometimes, that most people don't share our passion. Indeed, how many times have you seen secondhand equipment for sale where the Audyssey mic has been lost (and I bet in these cases, mostly never used)?

I have been into home theatre for over 20 years, going back to VHS tapes and Dolby Surround/Pro-Logic, and into high-end hi-fi for twice as long as that, and I have to say that in all those years nothing has made such a difference to the overall sound of my system as Audyssey has. And I don't even have the Pro kit (yet). Audyssey is cheap, relatively easy to use and does a great job for most people. Of course it isn't perfect - neither are any of the other EQ systems. But sometimes it is useful to remember its price, its limitations and its ease of use when comparing it with other methods that cost far more and demand a far more stringent learning curve!

And hey - "eloquent" - thanks!

Kind Regards,

Keith
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #925 of 2090 Old 10-08-2011, 07:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,125
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

The significant word there is 'if'. Most people don't. Audyssey MutlEQ was created for the masses - people who want to buy an AVR and have it working pretty well in a half hour. That's why various flavours of MultEQ are found in even budget AVRs. It's an unfair comparison to compare Audyssey with highly sophisticated measuring and control systems that the vast majority don't own (or indeed, want). Within its design parameters, Audyssey does a superb job for most of the people who run it. But it is just a tool - and clearly there will be superior tools, at greater cost and suitable only for those who have the skill, patience or knowledge to use them.



Generally, that is because they haven't followed the setup procedure properly.



It's not so much finicky as precise. You do have to flow the setup guide instructions ver precisely, it is true. A lot don't, hence the issues they discover. Audyssey setup is barely more 'finicky' than the time and effort involved in using REW or Omnimic!



I think the lack of 'after' graphs is down to the AVR manufacturer. Audyssey provides such graphs with the AS-EQ1 and Audyssey Pro.



That is a perfectly valid conclusion of course. Ultimately, a guy pays for his system and he has a 100% right to make it sound any way he wants it to sound.



You would surely agree though that Classé is beyond the reach of most people - Audyssey isn't. The comparison just seems to me to be apples and oranges.

Kind Regards,

Keith

Yes, I understand the Classé is not a typical purchase, and have been careful to couch my conversation that quality PEQ is, to me, essential if you want to go down a path of manual tweaking - I don't know what other processors offer this, though I'm sure some do. My original point in response to the 'benefit" of OmniMic, is that while it can certainly help with levels, speaker positioning, crossover, phase, and changes to room acoustics, a major advantage is if you're able to use it with a PEQ to dial in the sound.

My comments are here and not the Audyssey thread because a) it was brought up in this thread as sort of as a defacto superior approach, which I don't wholly agree with, and b) I'm in the same line of thought that those that are looking for a simple way to tune their system will hopefully be served by an automated approach and don't need this blather in that thread.

But I've witnessed Audyssey do more harm than good, and I've been very careful to follow all the guidelines in that thread, numerous times. So even for the m ore casual user, one should evaluate manual distance, crossover and level setting vs an Audyssey cal to see which is better. Audyssey will always sound "different" - often dramatically so, and initially this might be equated to "better." Critical listening might lead to different conclusions.

The after graphs in Pro are not in-room measurements, they are estimated/interpolated. - Audyssey Pro does not, as far as I know, perform an after-cal evaluation.
thrang is online now  
post #926 of 2090 Old 10-08-2011, 07:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
thrang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,125
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

edit: I hadn't read Keith's eloquent post above when typing this...



Well we're OT but let's keep in mind that these threads select for those who have problems with gear and are dissatisfied with results. Many Audyssey users never post as they have no complaint, have never heard better than the SQ they get with Audyssey, or just don't care about HT SQ the way we do. And of course, the threads attact a few folks who seem to like arguing and hearing themselves post. I attribute much casual-user Audyssey dissatisfaction to lack of user experience, not following instructions, odd gear and/or preference for non-reference EQ.

But then there are a few sophisticated serious fellows, like yourself, generally with good gear and rooms, who for reasons I respect, critique one aspect or another of Audyssey and may ultimately opt for a different method. These guys tend to be uncompromising in their search for audio nirvana (I mean that as a complement) and that's fine. If I decided to place my Dali Helicons in a dedicated music/HT room with acoustic treatments and put $10K worth of electronics upstream, I might be in that camp as well. But there's lots of guys like me who find Audyssey, with its quirks, a good path to a reasonable HT solution. And to my ears fully implemented Audyssey (XT32 plus Pro) is by far the best Audyssey solution.

I frankly thought the introduction of "defending" Audyssey in this dark little thread was odd when raised here by some - given the slender nature of interest in a manual approach, introducing themes and claims here that are already well covered in the much larger Audyssey thread is redundant at least, invasive at worst.

Most here I would guess, have "been there, done that" with automated approaches and are seeking alternatives. Best left at that I would think.
thrang is online now  
post #927 of 2090 Old 10-08-2011, 07:54 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,574
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 540 Post(s)
Liked: 1261
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

Yes, I understand the Classé is not a typical purchase, and have been careful to couch my conversation that quality PEQ is, to me, essential if you want to go down a path of manual tweaking - I don't know what other processors offer this, though I'm sure some do. My original point in response to the 'benefit" of OmniMic, is that while it can certainly help with levels, speaker positing, crossover, phase, and changes to room acoustics, a major advantage is if you're able to use it with a PEQ to dial in the sound.

I agree with you. I've just bought an Omnimic for precisely the reasons you state - not that I have the sophistication of equipment you have - but essentially the same reasons: to measure and to tweak for better results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post


But I've witnessed Audyssey do more harm than good, and I've been very careful to follow all the guidelines in that thread, numerous times. So even for the m ore casual user, one should evaluate manual distance, crossover and level setting vs an Audyssey cal to see which is better.

Again, we agree. I think most experienced Audyssey users would agree that often tweaking the things you mention results in a better SQ - and of course an Omnimic helps prove it (and to see it).

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

The after graphs in Pro are not in-room measurements, they are estimated/interpolated. - Audyssey Pro does not, as far as I know, perform an after-cal evaluation.

Oh for sure. I don't see how it could be any other way. Once you move the mic, as you would have to do in order to measure the room after calibration, then all bets are off. It's near impossible, even for highly anal types like me, to position the mic in *exactly* the same place for 8, 12 or 32 measurements!

Kind Regards,

Keith
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #928 of 2090 Old 10-08-2011, 08:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 28,400
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post
The fact that there are no in room "after" measurement graphs is also interesting.

I think the lack of 'after' graphs is down to the AVR manufacturer. Audyssey provides such graphs with the AS-EQ1 and Audyssey Pro.

Although I am not entirely agreeing to what I see as Thrang's philosophy, his point here is valid. Note that he refers to "measurements" and you to "graphs." Audyssey's "after graphs" are mathematical predictions and not original data.

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
http://www.stereophile.com/category/music-round

Kal Rubinson is online now  
post #929 of 2090 Old 10-08-2011, 08:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

I don't. Still trying to figure out why I should. I am a chef trying to salt to more tastes than just my own.

The only reason anyone should buy any measurement product is for the following.

1. To know the truth about product difference. In inaccurate/uncontrolled listening comparisons is about the worst thing that happens in the audio world daily.

2. To know exactly everything about a speaker or subwoofer. Everything from impulse response, THD, Linearity, CSDs, group delay, Polar response curves.

3. To know actually what a speaker or subwoofer is doing in your specific room.

4. To know how speaker placement, multiple subs, room treatments change the overall system response (FR response, Decay, etc).


Every choice above starts with "To Know" because any measurement tool is simply a device that gives you accurate data. Of course there is also education required to learn what the data means. The Omni mic on its own is NOT a room response changing device. Its merely a data collection tool.

Summary...

If you want data to make decisions then you need to buy something like the Omni kit.

If you do not care about data and just want a "Black Box" to make all your decisions then you do not need to buy anything like the Omni Kit.

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #930 of 2090 Old 10-08-2011, 08:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundofMind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SE MI
Posts: 7,962
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

I frankly thought the introduction of "defending" Audyssey in this dark little thread was odd when raised here by some - given the slender nature of interest in a manual approach, introducing themes and claims here that are already well covered in the much larger Audyssey thread is redundant at least, invasive at worst.

Most here I would guess, have "been there, done that" with automated approaches and are seeking alternatives. Best left at that I would think.

OK, I can't speak for "some" but I value your considerable experience and amiable, balanced posting style. And I completely respect your hard-earned findings in regards to optimizing your HT with PEQ. And I know there are other serious HT enthusiasts and audiophiles in that camp, as there are others in the ARC camp, etc.

I came to this thread thinking OmniMic was a lot easier than some competing systems and with two main objectives. One, the idea of using OmniMic to evaluate Audyssey's results. Yes Audyssey sounds pretty darn good, but those "After" graphs are indeed calculated, not measured and I'd like to see, not just hear, what's going on. Two, I thought I might use OmniMic to help optimize the room (bass traps, etc) and speaker/sub placement, and thus help Audyssey achieve even better results but decided I don't have the motivation, time and energy for that now.

Yes, I still like playing with Dalis.

SoundofMind is offline  
Reply DIY Speakers and Subs

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off