Should we be recommending Audyssey so much? - AVS Forum
1 2  3 
Receivers, Amps, and Processors > Should we be recommending Audyssey so much?
SyntheticShrimp's Avatar SyntheticShrimp 04:32 PM 12-30-2013
I won't be surprised if this post ruffles some feathers. I see people recommending Audyssey equipped products with an almost religious fervor. People have spent a lot of money on these products, and it's always disconcerting when someone says something bad about something you spent your hard earned money on. If you enjoy your equipment, then by all means keep enjoying it. There are certainly some parts of the Audyssey kit, Dynamic EQ namely, that I do like a lot.

My main objection to Audyssey is, ironically, the part that seems to most strongly influence people's decision to purchase Audyssey products. The room correction software. To explain why I'll first have to explain (review for many) some fundamentals about sound reproduction in a room.

Speakers differ from electronics in that they radiate in three dimensions. Because we are listening in a room we will hear both the off-axis sound reflected through the room and the on-axis direct sound. Not only does attention have to be paid to the spectrum of the on axis sound but also to the spectrum of the off-axis sound.

Speakers (omnidirectional speakers notwithstanding) become more directional with increasing frequency. This is because because frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength; as the frequency increases the wavelength shrinks. Eventually the size of the driver is substantial compared to the wavelength. At this point the driver begins to become highly directional or "beam". Most speakers are at least two way designs to achieve bandwidth close to human hearing. Because the different drivers are different sizes they will become highly directional at different frequencies. This can create a directivity mismatch at the crossover frequency that looks like this:



The far off axis sound of a well designed speaker will smoothly and gradually decrease in amplitude without evidence of a directivity mismatch between drivers at the crossover frequency. The following is a good example:



Check out Andrew Jones's interview on Home Theater Geeks for a good explanation.

My first objection to Audyssey is that in consumer versions it begins with the assumption that your speakers are designed like in the first image. It is referred to as "Midrange compensation" and is discussed by Dr. Kyriakakis here.

The reflected sound field is often a bigger determinant of the measured frequency response in a room than is the direct sound. If the reflected sound is a large contributor to the in-room frequency response then speakers with a directivity mismatch will measure with a hole in a frequency response at the crossover region

But our binaural hearing system is not entirely represented by microphone measurements. We seem to be able to "listen through" the reflections and hear the spectrum of the direct sound (see Sound Reproduction by Floyd Toole for more info). So instead of compensating for the hole in the in-room response, which may make the on-axis response sound colored (assuming it was balanced in the first place), Audyssey instead starts with the assumption that your speakers were designed for with a relatively flat on-axis frequency response and a directivity mismatch. This is probably a very reasonable assumption, but there are more speakers than ever that are designed without the directivity mismatch.

If one uses a speaker with well controlled directivity then "Midrange Compensation" simply introduces an arbitrary dip centered at 2kHz to the on-axis sound. As we are particularly sensitive in this region, this is probably undesirable.

My second objection is the choice of the target curve. As I mentioned earlier, measured in-room response is substantially influenced by reflections. Because of the unavoidable increasing directivity with frequency, if the on axis sound is balanced to be flat, this will result in in-room measurements showing a frequency response that follows downward slope from the low frequencies to the high frequencies. If the in-room response is equalized to be flat, the direct sound will be pushed to have an upward slope.

Here is an idealized representation of the relationship:
Normal frequency response for a "perfect speaker"

"Perfect speaker" equalized to flat in-room response.


Audyssey's house curve does appear to take this into consideration somewhat, but as far as I'm aware this is only with high frequencies. If the rest of the in-room response is equalized flat then there will be a decrease in amplitude of direct sound as frequency decreases, making the speaker sound thin or even bright.

In the only controlled, double blind study I've seen Audyssey performed poorly. This can be found here. The names of the room correction products are not revealed, but it's not hard to figure out from it's characteristic "Midrange Compensation" dip that RC6 is Audyssey . It's worth noting that listeners found RC6 to be thin and colored which is consistent with the points that I've made.

I think the Audyssey Room Equalizer hardware used in the comparison has MultEQ rather than MultEQ XT32, which has less FIRs and no dual sub EQ. Dynamic EQ also probably would have made things sound less thin, so there are some limitations to drawing comparative conclusions from the study. Nevertheless, the conclusion that the a flat target curve is not ideal is very useful and contributes to the discussion

My final point is that sound behaves very differently below a certain transition frequency that varies depending on the room, but it is often around 300Hz. Below that transition frequency the measured frequency response is dominated by the position of the listener and loudspeaker. Above that frequency the measured response is largely determined by the sound source and reflections. Equalizing above the transition frequency is mostly equalizing the loudspeaker. This is best done with access to the direct sound rather than with in-room measurements.

Most of the limitations of Audyssey don't exist for the pro version. This version has an adjustable target curve and defeatable Midrange Compensation. It requires an expensive license and an even more expensive AV receiver equipped with it. I hope in the future Audyssey will make a version that is some kind of compromise between the consumer and pro versions with at least a toggle for the Midrange Compensation.

The compromises that Audyssey makes make sense for an average consumer, but this is the AV Science forums, and we are most likely not average consumers. We often recommend well designed speakers, so we should be cautious about recommending room correction software that nullifies the speaker designers' hard work.

Cliff notes:
  • Midrange compensation may be robbing your speakers of the natural timbre that your speaker designers worked so hard for.
  • The target curve that Audyssey uses is probably making your speakers sound thin.
  • Above the transition frequency you are equalizing the loudspeaker. If this is done based on in-room measurements it could do more harm than good.


DS-21's Avatar DS-21 06:46 PM 12-30-2013
Well stated all around. One thing to emphasize, perhaps, is that the crappy speakers compensation notch didn't even work that well in a speaker with objectively horrible midrange power response (B&W N802) in the Harman tests. The bass might have had more to do with Audyssey's poor performance.

I use a relatively inexpensive standalone processor from Alpine for "room correction"/crossover in my car. It has Audyssey MultEQ XT, using offloading filter computations to a computer. The crappy speakers compensation notch is defeatable on that box. I don't see why they couldn't implement that improvement in an AVR as well. (I think the NAD implementation of Audyssey may delete the notch?)

While the other flaws (equalization based on in-room response above the modal region, most notably) would still be there, losing the midrange notch in the target curve would be a great start.
SyntheticShrimp's Avatar SyntheticShrimp 11:30 PM 12-30-2013
Thanks

You make a good point. The results of that study make me wonder if using the Midrange Compensation notch is the right approach for even a flawed speaker. If filling in a hole in sound power makes a speaker sound colored, as Audyssey suggests, I would have expected the other room correction devices to have suffered in comparison to the unequalized speaker.
oztech's Avatar oztech 12:04 AM 12-31-2013
When it comes to music I would rather not have any RC as for me they all have pluses and minuses which seems to get in the way more than fix things but that is just my opinion and what sounds pleasing to some sounds altered to others.
audiofan1's Avatar audiofan1 12:50 AM 12-31-2013
Interesting post! as someone who use to advocate 2/ch and good room treatments and well placed good mains for music play back, last year I upgraded my pre/pro to an Marantz 8801 primarily to hear for myself the benefits or lack thereof of DRC, as I sit here a year later typing this listing to Mahlers 4th sacd Ivan Fisher and the BFO from the Channel Classics label, I can tell you as with all things in this hobby of ours somethings take a little effort to extract the best from them. After I realized Audyssey got better when I paid as much attention to the small details as I did when setting up my system without it. I can say I respect it as a powerful tool capable of addressing problems in the room that room treatments alone cant and this works vice versa as well and the two yield breath taking results. I'm impressed with it and call you can call me sold and I will most likely try the pro kit in the future to get that last bit , but as for now I can say if setup properly It sounds good on music and movies smile.gif
KidHorn's Avatar KidHorn 06:13 AM 12-31-2013
I recently had an onkyo 606 receiver go bad (big surpise). It uses audyssey. Not sure which version. I replaced it with a Yamaha. Before running ypao, the sound was bad and after running it, the sound improved. The problem is the bass is very lacking with the Yamaha. Even if I crank up the gain, it doesn't sound nearly as good as it did with the Onkyo. I assume this is because audyssesy EQ'd the lower frequencies, while YPAO didn't.

Based on this, I don't think it's generally a bad idea to suggest getting a receiver that uses audyssey,
afrogt's Avatar afrogt 08:00 AM 12-31-2013
Your Onkyo 606 actually uses Audyssey 2EQ which does not eq the sub.

Audyssey Mult EQ and higher do eq the sub.
KidHorn's Avatar KidHorn 09:49 AM 12-31-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by afrogt View Post

Your Onkyo 606 actually uses Audyssey 2EQ which does not eq the sub.

Audyssey Mult EQ and higher do eq the sub.

Thanks for the info. I can't explain why the bass sounds better with the Onkyo, but it does.
Patrick Collins's Avatar Patrick Collins 12:37 PM 12-31-2013
I certainly haven't delved into this to the degree that the OP has, but acoustically my room is challenged. I went from a pre-pro with Audyssey MultiEQ XT to my Onkyo TX-NR929 with XT32. The sound in general has improved but most notably the bass is tighter and cleaner. I think they hit a home run with MultiEQ XT32. I'm now curious about the Pro version and where the point of diminishing returns is not worth further investment.
RichB's Avatar RichB 03:21 PM 12-31-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by SyntheticShrimp View Post


Cliff notes:
  • Midrange compensation may be robbing your speakers of the natural timbre that your speaker designers worked so hard for.
  • The target curve that Audyssey uses is probably making your speakers sound thin.
  • Above the transition frequency you are equalizing the loudspeaker. If this is done based on in-room measurements it could do more harm than good.

Your cliff notes are a perfect assessment of what happens when I run Audyssey in my room with the Salons with the AV8801.
I looked at the equalizer settings and the upper ends began the boost about 3K and went up 6 DB.

There is no way you would consider these speakers as lacking treble.
The rears were boosted at least 3D too high.

I sit about 12 feet from my mains but the room goes back over 20 feet with openings in the side and back.
After many tries I have concluded that the less processing after the D/A conversion the better I like the sound.

Here is a trace of Pure Direct taken with the OmniMic from my listening position:



It's not perfect, but it sounds good tongue.gif

- Rich
dftkell's Avatar dftkell 04:58 PM 12-31-2013
Great thread. Very informative.

I read the Harman article you reference a while back, but it doesn't appear that they implemented their software in the current Harman Kardon AVR's. It appears to be only available in the high end JBL Synthesis.

So iss Anthem's ARC the only viable, reasonably priced option then for good room correction?
SyntheticShrimp's Avatar SyntheticShrimp 05:43 PM 12-31-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post

Here is a trace of Pure Direct taken with the OmniMic from my listening position:



It's not perfect, but it sounds good tongue.gif

- Rich
That looks just about right. I'm not surprised it sounds so good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dftkell View Post

Great thread. Very informative.

I read the Harman article you reference a while back, but it doesn't appear that they implemented their software in the current Harman Kardon AVR's. It appears to be only available in the high end JBL Synthesis.

So iss Anthem's ARC the only viable, reasonably priced option then for good room correction?

Thanks!

The current state of room correction is really strange. I'm not opposed to equalization. In fact, I think bass equalization is practically a requirement for high fidelity unless you get really lucky. Weirdly, IIRC most versions of YPAO and MCACC don't equalize below a certain frequency (65Hz? please correct me if I'm wrong). This is one place that should be equalized. It seems that most of the room correction kits have some avoidable flaws.

ARC, with its ability to select a maximum EQ frequency, is a nice tool. If you can take measurements you can also manually equalize the modal region. MiniDSP seems like a cool option.
loop7's Avatar loop7 06:06 PM 12-31-2013
This is valuable thread and your writing is excellent.

I was likely expecting too much from Audyssey and thereby spent too much on an Integra with XT32. The thin sound was really challenging for me and your data explains why. Out of curiosity and desperation in my overly reflective room, I now have a Pioneer Elite. The MCACC "solution" suffers from myriad issues but it was an improvement in that I'm not as fatigued. I would definitely be interested in trying Audyssey again if curve editing capabilities were available without additional purchases.
M Code's Avatar M Code 06:07 PM 12-31-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by dftkell View Post

Great thread. Very informative.

I read the Harman article you reference a while back, but it doesn't appear that they implemented their software in the current Harman Kardon AVR's. It appears to be only available in the high end JBL Synthesis.

So iss Anthem's ARC the only viable, reasonably priced option then for good room correction?

We worked closely with Dr.Toole on development and implementation of the HK EQ system...
It was 1st used 8 years back in the higher end HK AVRs in 2005 starting with the AVR 745....
Then later it went into some of the Lexicon processors/AVRs and higher end JBL Synthesis stuff..
Over the years certain enhanced refinements were added, though other brands make certain claims Harman was touting the advantages of multiple subwoofers back then, now it is commonplace but in the majority of the AVRs the (2) subwoofer outputs are in parallel whereas the Harman system ran discrete S/W & EQ for each subwoofer.

Today HK does not build any higher end AVRs (SRP> $1099) as all software/hardware development work is now done in China and the Northridge HK team has been disbanded..
The software required a higher powered 300MHz 32/64 bit floating point DSP such as the TI DA 710, the present HK AVRs all use a lower cost, fixed point CIrrus Logic DSP.

Just my $0.05... 👍😉
phantom52's Avatar phantom52 08:06 PM 12-31-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code View Post

We worked closely with Dr.Toole on development and implementation of the HK EQ system...
It was 1st used 8 years back in the higher end HK AVRs in 2005 starting with the AVR 745....
Then later it went into some of the Lexicon processors/AVRs and higher end JBL Synthesis stuff..
Over the years certain enhanced refinements were added, though other brands make certain claims Harman was touting the advantages of multiple subwoofers back then, now it is commonplace but in the majority of the AVRs the (2) subwoofer outputs are in parallel whereas the Harman system ran discrete S/W & EQ for each subwoofer.

Today HK does not build any higher end AVRs (SRP> $1099) as all software/hardware development work is now done in China and the Northridge HK team has been disbanded..
The software required a higher powered 300MHz 32/64 bit floating point DSP such as the TI DA 710, the present HK AVRs all use a lower cost, fixed point CIrrus Logic DSP.

Just my $0.05... 👍😉

Thank you very much for that work. I feel the the EZset/EQ II on my H/K 7550HD works much better than either Audyssey Multi-Eq XT on my Onkyo 876 or the Advanced YPAO on my Yamaha RX-A3000. The H/K is still the one in use at this time. Same room, same equipment.
rnatalli's Avatar rnatalli 06:29 AM 01-01-2014
The EZset/EQ II on the 7550HD is very different from what you find on all the subsequent HK receivers. Shame HK doesn't filter the "II" version down into all their receivers as the room correction on the 7550HD is fabulous.
dftkell's Avatar dftkell 07:56 AM 01-01-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code View Post

We worked closely with Dr.Toole on development and implementation of the HK EQ system...
It was 1st used 8 years back in the higher end HK AVRs in 2005 starting with the AVR 745....
Then later it went into some of the Lexicon processors/AVRs and higher end JBL Synthesis stuff..
Over the years certain enhanced refinements were added, though other brands make certain claims Harman was touting the advantages of multiple subwoofers back then, now it is commonplace but in the majority of the AVRs the (2) subwoofer outputs are in parallel whereas the Harman system ran discrete S/W & EQ for each subwoofer.

Today HK does not build any higher end AVRs (SRP> $1099) as all software/hardware development work is now done in China and the Northridge HK team has been disbanded..
The software required a higher powered 300MHz 32/64 bit floating point DSP such as the TI DA 710, the present HK AVRs all use a lower cost, fixed point CIrrus Logic DSP.

Just my $0.05... 👍😉

Hi M Code,

Is the HK EQ system you worked on years back superior to Audyssey MultEQ XT32, ARC and the current offerings of room correction from other manufacturers?

The reason I'm asking is that I'm considering an AVR upgrade. The HK AVR7550HD is still for sale in limited quantities on Amazon. I know this is an older receiver, but it's feature set looks good. Not sure what advantage current AVR's would have over it.

Thanks
Dan
Badouri's Avatar Badouri 10:14 AM 01-01-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantom52 View Post

Thank you very much for that work. I feel the the EZset/EQ II on my H/K 7550HD works much better than either Audyssey Multi-Eq XT on my Onkyo 876 or the Advanced YPAO on my Yamaha RX-A3000. The H/K is still the one in use at this time. Same room, same equipment.

What version of Audyssey is on your NAD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantom52 View Post

Listen to one. You will hear the difference. I used to feel that yes Yamaha and Onkyo both sound good with music and movies. Then I listened to the H/K 7550HD and there is a whole different sound and it's much better. Then I listened to a NAD and its better. Evidence, no I don't have any, I just know what sounds better to me, with my speakers and in my room. All the credibility I need. I'm the one that needs to be satisfied.

comfynumb's Avatar comfynumb 10:27 AM 01-01-2014
^^^
AFAIK there are not any NAD AVR's with XT32.
primetimeguy's Avatar primetimeguy 10:37 AM 01-01-2014
Just as a note, most receivers with Audyssey have the midrange compensation disabled if you use the flat or music curve rather than reference than reference curve.
phantom52's Avatar phantom52 10:54 AM 01-01-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badouri View Post

What version of Audyssey is on your NAD?

Don't have and never had one. Listened to one at a shop here we have. T758 with Audyssey off and the same speakers I have. No DBT. Just felt the sound was better than what I have in use. Could be I could bring my H/K 7550HD there connect everything up and feel different. At the time the T758 was not worth the price difference. I got my H/K for $850 delivered NIB. If I had to purchase an AVR now it would be the NAD T758. I'm not that into the different versions of REQ. Yes they are useful to many but I wouldn't purchase an AVR due to its REQ.
RichB's Avatar RichB 10:57 AM 01-01-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code View Post

...
hardware development work is now done in China and the Northridge HK team has been disbanded..
The software required a higher powered 300MHz 32/64 bit floating point DSP such as the TI DA 710, the present HK AVRs all use a lower cost, fixed point CIrrus Logic DSP.

Just my $0.05... 👍😉

When I listen to the AV8801 or my old Onkyo PR-SC5507, the Stereo mode even when set to flat does not sound as good as Pure Direct. The imaging is changed. Even with USB DACs, changes to driver settings alters the sound.

I have not heard high-end products, but I have doubts about the ability of these processors to preserve the source signal through all this processing. In other words, their is a cost and a benefit.

The best 2 channel sound I have heard in my Room is the BDP-105 directly connected to the A51 Amp and a DAC acting as a preamp.
That said, detecting the difference between the AV8801 Pure Direct and the USB/DAC required an XLR switch. biggrin.gif

- Rich
TKO1's Avatar TKO1 11:34 AM 01-01-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post

Your cliff notes are a perfect assessment of what happens when I run Audyssey in my room with the Salons with the AV8801.
I looked at the equalizer settings and the upper ends began the boost about 3K and went up 6 DB.

There is no way you would consider these speakers as lacking treble.
The rears were boosted at least 3D too high.

I sit about 12 feet from my mains but the room goes back over 20 feet with openings in the side and back.
After many tries I have concluded that the less processing after the D/A conversion the better I like the sound.

Here is a trace of Pure Direct taken with the OmniMic from my listening position:



It's not perfect, but it sounds good tongue.gif

- Rich

Rich,

your speakers, Revel Salons, should not be touched above 300-400Hz, by any room EQ/correction system. Both Dr. Toole and Dr. Olive, from Harman have stated repeatedly that above 300-400Hz you are trying to compensate for the speakers and not the room. If you have well-engineered speakers they should be left alone above that frequency. Revel's, IMHO, are among the best engineered speakers in the world, right up there with the JBL M2 Master Reference Monitors. From Dr. Olive's Audio Musings blog was Harman's Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products. Although dated the findings are still relevant in terms of what listeners preferred. Also, of note, is Dr. Olive's response to a question in the comments related to the Salons and room correction:
Quote:
... Regarding your above question about the room correction to a loudspeaker like the Revel Salon that is known to have a smooth frequency response and directivity, yet the in-room measurements indicate a peak in the midrange from the room?

In cases like this, you have to ask yourself what caused the peak? Normally peaks associated with room resonances will not be visible above 300-400 Hz and at those frequencies the peak will vary from seat to seat.

Constructive/destruction interferences between the direct and reflected sounds can cause a peak in the midrange but normally this disappears and changes with microphone location. If you do 3-6 spatial-averages, the peak should disappear, and the need to equalize goes away.

If the peak survives spatial averaging then I suspect the problem is with the loudspeaker. If the loudspeaker has constant or smooth directivity you can equalize out the peak and improve the on and off-axis sound produced by the loudspeaker.

If you don't know the on/off-axis behavior of the loudspeaker, you risk improving the reflected sounds at the expense of the direct sound.

Finally, if you own Revel Salons, they don't need any equalization except below 300 Hz where the room dominates what you hear smile.gif If you own good loudspeakers, you should focus on correcting the low frequency acoustical interactions between the loudspeaker and room.

which I think is why you prefer Pure Direct.

Cheers.
jima4a's Avatar jima4a 11:46 AM 01-01-2014
I have the Integra DHC80.3 and Kef Reference front three and do not use Audyssey. Do not like it for music. It is fine for movies but now I just leave it off. I also found different mics can give different results.
M Code's Avatar M Code 01:17 PM 01-01-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post

Rich,

your speakers, Revel Salons, should not be touched above 300-400Hz, by any room EQ/correction system. Both Dr. Toole and Dr. Olive, from Harman have stated repeatedly that above 300-400Hz you are trying to compensate for the speakers and not the room. If you have well-engineered speakers they should be left alone above that frequency. Revel's, IMHO, are among the best engineered speakers in the world, right up there with the JBL M2 Master Reference Monitors. From Dr. Olive's Audio Musings blog was Harman's Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products. Although dated the findings are still relevant in terms of what listeners preferred. Also, of note, is Dr. Olive's response to a question in the comments related to the Salons and room correction:
which I think is why you prefer Pure Direct.

Cheers.

As we have posted multiple times..
Both Dr.Toole & Dr.Olive strongly recommend that the low frequency reponse < 300Hz must be tamed, or else the entire sonic, spectrum balance will be corrupted. Though some may critize and disagree with their findings, but Dr.Toole & Dr.Olive have done an incredible amount of research/development for acoustics for loudspeakers and room placement/furnishings. A great starting point is to read Dr.Toole's book Sound Reproduction...
Available from Amazon..
http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Acoustics-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers/dp/0240520092

Also if anyone is a member of CEDIA, we strongly recommend taking some of Dr.Toole's classes.

Just my $0.05..... 👍😉
M Code's Avatar M Code 01:36 PM 01-01-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by dftkell View Post

Hi M Code,

Is the HK EQ system you worked on years back superior to Audyssey MultEQ XT32, ARC and the current offerings of room correction from other manufacturers?

The reason I'm asking is that I'm considering an AVR upgrade. The HK AVR7550HD is still for sale in limited quantities on Amazon. I know this is an older receiver, but it's feature set looks good. Not sure what advantage current AVR's would have over it.

Thanks
Dan

DAN..
The challenge today is that the HK EQ system is is dated and now over 4 years old. The majority of the SW development team has either retired and/or moved on, I am too close to the development so my comments are likely biased..
My takeaway was an acute awareness of acoustic properties that Harman tested/designed for that most of the competition was not even yet aware of...
When Dr.Harman was alive, his passion to hire the best and underwrite their tasks to elevate their R&D to develop the best products to deliver superior sonic performance be in an automobile, pro audio, multi-media or consumer application was incredible... And when requested he supported funding for new developments, the Harman organization of today is very different..

Regarding Audyssey, I am well aware about their significant progress in the pursuit of upgrading sonic performance with various DSP apps, note that my 1st interface with them was back in 2005 when it was only Chris and Phil working from USC.....

Just my $0.05.... 👍😉
dftkell's Avatar dftkell 02:15 PM 01-01-2014
Thanks for the reply M Code.
Dan
SyntheticShrimp's Avatar SyntheticShrimp 02:32 PM 01-01-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by primetimeguy View Post

Just as a note, most receivers with Audyssey have the midrange compensation disabled if you use the flat or music curve rather than reference than reference curve.
Can you tell me where you found out about that? Dr. Kyriakakis says in this thread that Audyssey Flat does include Midrange Compensation.

Even if it didn't, the Flat curve will likely make speakers in all but the most acoustically damped rooms sound bright.
primetimeguy's Avatar primetimeguy 02:36 PM 01-01-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by SyntheticShrimp View Post


Can you tell me where you found out about that? Dr. Kyriakakis says in this thread that Audyssey Flat does include Midrange Compensation.

Even if it didn't, the Flat curve will make speakers in all but the most acoustically damped rooms sound bright.

Yep, that is old discussion.  :D

 

There was some discussion about it in the Audyssey thread a few weeks back so you can try and search through there.  I had noticed this on my current receiver and previous one, and others provided measurements to also back it up.  I believe someone asked Chris on Facebook as a follow-up and he confirmed that for a few years the Flat/Music curve has not had the dip.


Kevin C Brown's Avatar Kevin C Brown 02:46 PM 01-01-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code View Post

As we have posted multiple times..
Both Dr.Toole & Dr.Olive strongly recommend that the low frequency reponse < 300Hz must be tamed, or else the entire sonic, spectrum balance will be corrupted. Though some may critize and disagree with their findings, but Dr.Toole & Dr.Olive have done an incredible amount of research/development for acoustics for loudspeakers and room placement/furnishings. A great starting point is to read Dr.Toole's book Sound Reproduction...
Available from Amazon..
http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Acoustics-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers/dp/0240520092

I have always thought that Audyssey should have a very easy to implement option, of just EQ'ing the room say below a user selectable point of 300-500 Hz. I also think that their software should offer higher levels of RLO than 15 dB too. Give the customer more choice!
Tags: Audyssey
1 2  3 

Up
Mobile  Desktop