"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779) - Page 1001 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #30001 of 72378 Old 08-24-2010, 11:37 PM
emf
Senior Member
 
emf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 200
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Is a Denon mike suitable for an Onkyo?

I found a great price for an Onkyo receiver and I look forward to trying Audessey. When I noted the mike was missing, the salesman found one from a Denon. The mike looked the same as one pictured in the manual. The salesman insisted these mikes were the same.

Printed on one side the mike has the name "Denon," and on another side "Audessey." The bottom has a brass insert that fits and locks on my tripod. Maybe it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and it's a calibrated mike.

Maybe the salesman was right? I guess a mike is better than no mike.
emf is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #30002 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 12:33 AM
Member
 
K1LL3M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey View Post

One word: "two subs".

So will this render the SubEQ and SVS AS-EQ1 obsolete?
K1LL3M is online now  
post #30003 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 12:56 AM
Senior Member
 
atledreier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sandnes, Norway
Posts: 457
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
No, it will mean CHEAP AS-EQ1s and SubEqs for the rest of us! :-D

"Unplugging the signal cable is pretty much the ultimate in component isolation. Now if you removed the AC power and it still did it you should look for the little blond girl saying "they're he-re."
atledreier is offline  
post #30004 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 01:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 722 Post(s)
Liked: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by K1LL3M View Post

So will this render the SubEQ and SVS AS-EQ1 obsolete?

Hopefully because those devices have a significant drawback: they don't optimize the crossover region from subwoofer to mains.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is online now  
post #30005 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 03:09 AM
Member
 
yasmin6969's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Spain, Bilbao.
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by K1LL3M View Post

So will this render the SubEQ and SVS AS-EQ1 obsolete?

In Audyssey's Facebook you can see the SUB EQ HT feature is a dual sub eq.

''Audyssey Denon 4311 hits the stores. 9.2 channels, MultEQ XT32 (not 21 as the article states), 7 HDMI outputs, "Pre Amp Mode" and Audyssey's new Sub EQ HT which equalizes two discrete subs. ''
yasmin6969 is offline  
post #30006 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 04:20 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

Hopefully because those devices have a significant drawback: they don't optimize the crossover region from subwoofer to mains.

Overlaying MultEQ XT or Pro is the recommended procedure for these devices, so that takes care of sub/mains integration.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- it's never done!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
pepar is online now  
post #30007 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 04:29 AM
Member
 
K1LL3M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by K1LL3M View Post

So will this render the SubEQ and SVS AS-EQ1 obsolete?

Or are we going to see a 32x upgrade to these units, now with 16k filters (32x512)
K1LL3M is online now  
post #30008 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 04:53 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by K1LL3M View Post

Or are we going to see a 32x upgrade to these units, now with 16k filters (32x512)

The last firmware doubled the filter resolution to, I think, 32x.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- it's never done!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
pepar is online now  
post #30009 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 05:10 AM
Member
 
K1LL3M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

The last firmware doubled the filter resolution to, I think, 32x.

Last firmware did double but took these units from 256x to 512x.

The algorithm for XT32 has allowed filters to go from 16x to 512x (32x)

So the question could this new algorithm in the standalone units increase them 32x (16k) or is it just making them obsolete?
K1LL3M is online now  
post #30010 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 05:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gamelover360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Orebro, Sweden!!!
Posts: 2,775
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I know the wisdom is to follow Pro's recommendations for crossovers...but I just want to understand a little better.

My speakers install guide says they should be used with an 80hz crossover. The subwoofer says the same thing. Now, I have heard that this is only a recommendation and that the in room performance as measured by Pro is more important...... and I have heard that if the manufacturer says to use 80hz, then you should. But I don't know of anything in the spekear itself that would neccesitate an 80 hz cross. They are rated at -3db at 70hz, and that is what Pro recommended as the first choice for all satellites, except the center....for that it recommends 100hz.

I intend to try some listening tests with all crossed at 80hz and then with Pro's recommendations---all at 70hz except the center at 100hz. Any recommendations as to what to listen for and what type of material to use for the AB demo?

But just to be sure....my THX Ultra 2 certified Integra 9.9 will still use a 2nd order filter if I select 70hz as a cross. Then the speaker applies another 2nd order filter....so you get a 4th order filter in total. I know with 80 hz (THX) it will follow that procedure, but I want to be sure that it won't do something differnt if I select a non THX crossover.

Also, I have heard that Blu rays are mastered with 80hz crossover in mind. I can't figure how this would make a difference, or if it is even true.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
gamelover360 is offline  
post #30011 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 05:50 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by K1LL3M View Post

Last firmware did double but took these units from 256x to 512x.

The algorithm for XT32 has allowed filters to go from 16x to 512x (32x)

So the question could this new algorithm in the standalone units increase them 32x (16k) or is it just making them obsolete?

Maybe this new algorithm was developed on the SubEQ and is what allowed the recent increase.

Obsolete? Not for people who aren't going to drop $2k on a receiver, and certainly not for anyone who already owns one.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- it's never done!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
pepar is online now  
post #30012 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 06:17 AM
Member
 
K1LL3M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Interesting point on the development.

Maybe obsolete is the wrong word, redundant might be better, baring in mind that we are only talking with reference to the processing in the new AVRs
K1LL3M is online now  
post #30013 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 06:21 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by K1LL3M View Post

Interesting point on the development.

Maybe obsolete is the wrong word, redundant might be better, baring in mind that we are only talking with reference to the processing in the new AVRs

.. in the new high-end AVRs

The manufacturers will be very shrewd in what they put this in. I've already heard people grousing about it. I've groused about it.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- it's never done!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
pepar is online now  
post #30014 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 06:47 AM
Member
 
K1LL3M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Might help to understand where this questioning comes from

I have a 4810 and I just purchased an EQ1 unit. I now am hoping to see an xt32 upgrade for the 4810 or the purchase of a new unit with the xt32. So for me, and I am sure many others, will the EQ1 be a pointless unit as soon as I/we have xt32 enabled AVRs. (ultimately it's all about me)
K1LL3M is online now  
post #30015 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 06:50 AM
Advanced Member
 
ghstudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Chris...Audyssey!!!

I have asked this before but there are so many posts in this forum, I have never seen the answer.

I have (or shortly will have) an Integra DHC-40.2 and a Sound Equalizer. What is the correct way to set them up.

1) setup the Sound Equalizer, then setup Audyssey in the 40.2 going thru the sound equalizer and use whatever distance/levels found by the 40.2 setup?

2) setup the sound equalizer, then setup the audyssey in the 40.2 so I can activate Dynamic EQ and volume but manually override the 40.2 eq to flat and use the distance/level settings from the Sound Equalizer Setup.

3)?????

if (2) is the answer, will dynamic volume/EQ work correctly?
ghstudio is offline  
post #30016 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 07:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 722 Post(s)
Liked: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Overlaying MultEQ XT or Pro is the recommended procedure for these devices, so that takes care of sub/mains integration.

The signal doesn't get better from being processed 2 times.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is online now  
post #30017 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 08:00 AM
Senior Member
 
dewd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Mechanicsburg, PA
Posts: 487
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by emf View Post

Is a Denon mike suitable for an Onkyo?

I found a great price for an Onkyo receiver and I look forward to trying Audessey. When I noted the mike was missing, the salesman found one from a Denon. The mike looked the same as one pictured in the manual. The salesman insisted these mikes were the same.

Printed on one side the mike has the name "Denon," and on another side "Audessey." The bottom has a brass insert that fits and locks on my tripod. Maybe it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and it's a calibrated mike.

Maybe the salesman was right? I guess a mike is better than no mike.

AFAIK, the mics are different. You should never use a mic from any other receiver (even other different model Onkyos).


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dewd is offline  
post #30018 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 08:08 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by K1LL3M View Post

Might help to understand where this questioning comes from

I have a 4810 and I just purchased an EQ1 unit. I now am hoping to see an xt32 upgrade for the 4810 or the purchase of a new unit with the xt32. So for me, and I am sure many others, will the EQ1 be a pointless unit as soon as I/we have xt32 enabled AVRs. (ultimately it's all about me)

Anyone whose system has no un-corrected problems will hear no difference with increased filter resolution.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- it's never done!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
pepar is online now  
post #30019 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 08:12 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

The signal doesn't get better from being processed 2 times.

The signal? How about the sound?

The sound of my system improved quite noticeably overlaying Pro onto my AS-EQ1.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- it's never done!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
pepar is online now  
post #30020 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 08:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,312
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 597 Post(s)
Liked: 733
Quote:
Originally Posted by K1LL3M View Post

Interesting point on the development.

Maybe obsolete is the wrong word, redundant might be better, baring in mind that we are only talking with reference to the processing in the new AVRs

I am in this situation as well, because I purchased an AS-EQ1 several months ago, and am strongly considering upgrading to the 4311 when it comes available. I don't think a clear description has been provided yet as to how new AVR's with Sub EQ HD will either co-exist, or replace, the stand-alone sub equalizer. For example, if Sub EQ HD provides all the functionality of the AS-EQ1, then perhaps it's time to move the AS-EQ1 to the bedroom system .

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Anyone whose system has no un-corrected problems will hear no difference with increased filter resolution.

Jeff, other than purchase the Pro kit and look at the "after" graphs, it's somewhat difficult to know the number and severity of "uncorrected" problems. There is always the listening test, but that is too subjective for me. One of the main reasons I am considering upgrading to the 4311 from a 4308 is the MultEQ XT32. I am going to be disappointed if I don'tperceive any improvement in SQ. Your thoughts?

__________________________________________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
AustinJerry is offline  
post #30021 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 08:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JHAz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamelover360 View Post

I know the wisdom is to follow Pro's recommendations for crossovers...but I just want to understand a little better.

My speakers install guide says they should be used with an 80hz crossover. The subwoofer says the same thing. Now, I have heard that this is only a recommendation and that the in room performance as measured by Pro is more important...... and I have heard that if the manufacturer says to use 80hz, then you should. But I don't know of anything in the spekear itself that would neccesitate an 80 hz cross. They are rated at -3db at 70hz, and that is what Pro recommended as the first choice for all satellites, except the center....for that it recommends 100hz.

I intend to try some listening tests with all crossed at 80hz and then with Pro's recommendations---all at 70hz except the center at 100hz. Any recommendations as to what to listen for and what type of material to use for the AB demo?

But just to be sure....my THX Ultra 2 certified Integra 9.9 will still use a 2nd order filter if I select 70hz as a cross. Then the speaker applies another 2nd order filter....so you get a 4th order filter in total. I know with 80 hz (THX) it will follow that procedure, but I want to be sure that it won't do something differnt if I select a non THX crossover.

Also, I have heard that Blu rays are mastered with 80hz crossover in mind. I can't figure how this would make a difference, or if it is even true.

Your best bet at hearing the difference, if any, that the 10 Hz change in crossover point makes would be with a pink or white noise test signal. You're basically shifting three notes up or down and to find a music or movie passage that highlights the change clearly will be hit or miss. I'd go with what the in-room measurement says, but YMMV.

AFAIK, BDs are mastered, for major releases, from the PCM 5.1 channel master that was used to create the theater prints. There's nothing about them that can or should consider what the crossover might be to a subwoofer that might or might not be used to handle redirected bass in a setting different from a movie theater.

Plus, I don't know how you would master with an 80 Hz crossover in mind. You could mix or master using bass management with an 80 Hz crossover, which would make zero difference if your mastering system is "perfect" (flat, all the phase stuff a-okay) and would be skewed for the particular mastering system's idiosyncracies if that system were not perfect. Then, to match what the master-ers heard, you[d have to find a way to perfectly recreate the imperfections in the particular system used to make the particular BD, which seems a stretch.
JHAz is online now  
post #30022 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 08:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,312
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 597 Post(s)
Liked: 733
Question for Chris:

We already know from a previous post that the Pro kit will support the 32x resolution enhancement, asssuming of course that it is run in conjunction with a new AVR with MultEQ XT32.

Will a software upgrade for the Pro kit be required to support this? If yes, will it be available at the same time the new AVR's are shipping, and will it be free for existing Pro users?

__________________________________________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
AustinJerry is offline  
post #30023 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 08:56 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
counsil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Posts: 1,979
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey View Post

But, acting as "one"

You're killing me Chris. I am going broke keeping up with all the new Audyssey *toys*. Should I just add you to my checking account and send you a debit card?

Never argue with an idiot; they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
counsil is offline  
post #30024 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 09:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 722 Post(s)
Liked: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

The signal? How about the sound?

The sound of my system improved quite noticeably overlaying Pro onto my AS-EQ1.

How do you know how it would sound if there was only one single optimization EQ involved? The point is: the signal gets EQed two times, not a favorable situation.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is online now  
post #30025 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 09:52 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

How do you know how it would sound if there was only one single optimization EQ involved? The point is: the signal gets EQed two times, not a favorable situation.

I know because I lived with only MultEQ XT for quite a while, added the AS-EQ1 using the bypass (causing MultEQ XT to set a null filter on the sub channel) and lived with that for a while before purchasing the Pro Kit, doing a calibration "over" the AS-EQ1 and then using that ever since.

You're speaking theoretical and I've been experiencing actual. I've also read that the effects of another analog/digital/analog round trip is less likely to be noticed at subwoofer channel frequencies. Whether that's true or not, I know my system and it only got better with the application of each increment of Audyssey technology.

Jeff


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- it's never done!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
pepar is online now  
post #30026 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 10:02 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I am in this situation as well, because I purchased an AS-EQ1 several months ago, and am strongly considering upgrading to the 4311 when it comes available. I don't think a clear description has been provided yet as to how new AVR's with Sub EQ HD will either co-exist, or replace, the stand-alone sub equalizer. For example, if Sub EQ HD provides all the functionality of the AS-EQ1, then perhaps it's time to move the AS-EQ1 to the bedroom system .

Jeff, other than purchase the Pro kit and look at the "after" graphs, it's somewhat difficult to know the number and severity of "uncorrected" problems. There is always the listening test, but that is too subjective for me. One of the main reasons I am considering upgrading to the 4311 from a 4308 is the MultEQ XT32. I am going to be disappointed if I don'tperceive any improvement in SQ. Your thoughts?

WRT how the AS-EQ1/SubEQ will fit going forward, the "market" will sort that out. Whether or not you move the AS-EQ1 to your bedroom system and purchase a something with SubEQ HT (HD?) in it will be one buying decision that will, along with everyone else's decisions, be the market making that determination.

I honestly don't know how they can A/B lesser res filters with the higher res filters. I know that I am quite happy with my system's performance. Part of that is Audyssey and part of it is the acoustical treatments. I would not consider giving up either one. I suspect that when I do upgrade, it will be to add DSX and Wides, not to get higher filter resolution on the main channels.

Jeff


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- it's never done!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
pepar is online now  
post #30027 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 10:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 722 Post(s)
Liked: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I know because I lived with only MultEQ XT for quite a while, added the AS-EQ1 using the bypass (causing MultEQ XT to set a null filter on the sub channel) and lived with that for a while before purchasing the Pro Kit, doing a calibration "over" the AS-EQ1 and then using that ever since.

You're speaking theoretical and I've been experiencing actual. I've also read that the effects of another analog/digital/analog round trip is less likely to be noticed at subwoofer channel frequencies. Whether that's true or not, I know my system and it only got better with the application of each increment of Audyssey technology.

Jeff

So what you heard was a difference. But different doesn't equal better. Even with a proper listening test (ABX) we would not know what is better - the recording just might not be to your liking. The only way to determine what is better is to "theorize" and measure. That's what automated speaker-room optimizer like Audyssey do.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is online now  
post #30028 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 10:45 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
counsil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Posts: 1,979
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Chris posted about this before but I couldn't find it...

If you had 7 speakers, would using the last 2 as wides or surround backs be best? If you had 9 speakers, would using the last 4 as wides, surround backs, and/or heights be best? General speaking of course...

Some Pro and Cons of each configuration would be great, too...

Never argue with an idiot; they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
counsil is offline  
post #30029 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 12:00 PM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

So what you heard was a difference. But different doesn't equal better. Even with a proper listening test (ABX) we would not know what is better - the recording just might not be to your liking. The only way to determine what is better is to "theorize" and measure. That's what automated speaker-room optimizer like Audyssey do.

I guess part of hearing an improvement *is* hearing a difference, but words have meaning so I'd like to characterize it as I choose.

Admittedly this is subjective and you don't know what I am hearing or anything about my ability to judge what I am hearing. Having said that, the improvements I heard were in the integration of the surrounds and the fronts and integration of the subs with the mains. Along with that, the imaging across the front improved as well as the imaging on the sides. From MultEQ XT to adding the AS-EQ1 to overlaying MultEQ XT to .. overlaying MultEQ Pro, the ringing in the LF incrementally decreased as well at each step. That, at least, was measured.

Jeff


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- it's never done!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
pepar is online now  
post #30030 of 72378 Old 08-25-2010, 12:07 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
batpig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 24,304
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 573 Post(s)
Liked: 1218
Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post

Chris posted about this before but I couldn't find it...

If you had 7 speakers, would using the last 2 as wides or surround backs be best? If you had 9 speakers, would using the last 4 as wides, surround backs, and/or heights be best? General speaking of course...

Some Pro and Cons of each configuration would be great, too...

according to Audyssey research:

- after the "core" 5.1 speaker setup, the greatest improvement is gained by adding "wide" speakers to create the proper sense of "auditory source width", giving the soundtrack that sense of enveloping spaciousness that you get in a big concert hall or movie theater.

- second, but far behind, is the addition of "height" speakers, and then the "surround back" speakers are considered the least important.

See the Audyssey DSX page, they explain the rationale: http://www.audyssey.com/technology/dsx.html

Quote:


Where should the new channels be placed?

One key finding from the research is that first side wall reflections play a great role in determining subjective impression. The most important direction of reflected sound was found to be ±60° relative to the front. Audyssey DSX provides a pair of Wide channels (LW and RW) at ±60° with appropriate frequency response and perceptual processing to match these requirements of human hearing. These Wide channels are much more critical in the presentation of a realistic soundstage than the Back Surround channels found in traditional 7.1 systems. Adding surround channels behind the listener has a very small impact compared to the increase in envelopment and soundstage width that the Wide channels provide.

The next most important acoustical and perceptual cues come from reflections above the front stage. Audyssey DSX provides a pair of Height channels (LH and RH) that should be ideally positioned at a 45° elevation angle.

In practice, a lot will depend upon the specifics of your room. If you don't have the space to properly place "wide" speakers, then the fact that they are theoretically the "most important" doesn't do much for you

batpig's "Denon-to-English Dictionary"
Setup Guide and FAQ

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
batpig is online now  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

Tags
Audyssey , Receivers Amplifiers , Kef Kht1005 2se 5 1 Subwoofer Satellite System With C4 Subwoofer Gloss White , 5 6 7 1 7 2 Or 8 1 8 2 One Or Two Subwoofer Compatible 16 Banana Post 2 Rca Speaker Wall Plate For H
Gear in this thread - Kht1005 by PriceGrabber.com

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