"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779) - Page 1013 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #30361 of 72815 Old 08-31-2010, 03:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
jmalto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 996
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shnapper View Post

I understand, just not sure if I should contact the store I bought it from or just wait? I have 30 days to decide, however shipping 66lbs anywhere is costly if it needs to be sent out....

Onkyo has good customer support and should take care of you. I decided to return mine because college football season is starting and I refuse to be without a receiver I am going to try the new Denon out so I will see if it displays the same issues the Onkyo did. You can setup the Onkyo the old fashioned way and not use Audyssey and it sounds great, just don't enable Auydssey.

To make note, the Onkyo was a really nice receiver and it is unfortunate this bug passed QA. I guess we can take my XT32 graphs with a grain of salt at this point although it didn't do anything strange to the subs, just the mains and surrounds.

Oh and BTW, it cost me $50 to send mine insured back to the place I purchased it from
jmalto is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #30362 of 72815 Old 08-31-2010, 06:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
audyssey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,150
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It appears that a firmware bug is emerging as the culprit. We are investigating and will keep you posted on a solution in the form of a firmware update...this only affects the first batch of 3008/5008 units and that it was corrected in the ones following. But, I don't have details on S/Ns yet. I will continue to keep everyone posted as I receive info.

Chris

Join me for Audyssey Tech Talk on Facebook here.
Follow me @ChrisAudyssey on Twitter here.
audyssey is offline  
post #30363 of 72815 Old 08-31-2010, 06:48 PM
Member
 
Shnapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 83
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey View Post

It appears that a firmware bug is emerging as the culprit. We are investigating and will keep you posted on a solution in the form of a firmware update...this only affects the first batch of 3008/5008 units and that it was corrected in the ones following. But, I don't have details on S/Ns yet. I will continue to keep everyone posted as I receive info.

Thanks for the info, I hope I got one that's updated. If not at least I know a fix is in the works...
Shnapper is offline  
post #30364 of 72815 Old 08-31-2010, 07:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
jmalto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 996
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey View Post

It appears that a firmware bug is emerging as the culprit. We are investigating and will keep you posted on a solution in the form of a firmware update...this only affects the first batch of 3008/5008 units and that it was corrected in the ones following. But, I don't have details on S/Ns yet. I will continue to keep everyone posted as I receive info.

Thanks Chris, has anyone told you how helpful you are?

I kind of wished I would of hung onto the receiver so I could of tested the fix for you. It appears there are a couple people in the official Onkyo thread that are awaiting units to come in so hopefully they can report back.
jmalto is offline  
post #30365 of 72815 Old 08-31-2010, 07:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,756
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 22
I wouldn't be sure and would either contact Onkyo immediately with the statement by Chris or would return or refuse to accept the new unit.
Who knows, how long the firmware update will take...

Don't take chances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shnapper View Post

Thanks for the info, I hope I got one that's updated. If not at least I know a fix is in the works...

gurkey is offline  
post #30366 of 72815 Old 08-31-2010, 08:12 PM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,146
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurkey View Post

I wouldn't be sure and would either contact Onkyo immediately with the statement by Chris or would return or refuse to accept the new unit.
Who knows, how long the firmware update will take...

Don't take chances.

jmalto paid $50 to ship his NR3008 back insured. Sucks, but that was/is the terms of purchase. Whereas waiting a bit is free and so will the firmware update when there is one. Again, it sucks if your unit isn't working right now, but some smart and motivated people are focused on this.

Just my $.02.

Jeff
pepar is offline  
post #30367 of 72815 Old 08-31-2010, 08:52 PM
Member
 
Shnapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 83
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurkey View Post

I wouldn't be sure and would either contact Onkyo immediately with the statement by Chris or would return or refuse to accept the new unit.
Who knows, how long the firmware update will take...

Don't take chances.

I tend to agree with you, as the statement made by Chris doesn't seem to make perfect sense to me. If it only affects first run units, why would there
not be a firmware update currently available? What fixed the following units, had to be a firmware update no?

I may just refuse the unit unless in the next 24 hours some substantial information is posted on this problem...
Shnapper is offline  
post #30368 of 72815 Old 08-31-2010, 08:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
dookie1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
ridiculous question, i realize...

if xt32 requires no more computing power than xt, is it possible that a currently xt-equipped device could be updated to xt32 with a firmware update?

i realize no mfg will choose to do this, in order to drive folks on to the next device...but is it possible?
dookie1 is offline  
post #30369 of 72815 Old 08-31-2010, 10:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,756
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 22
I remember a response, stating, that in principle it should be possible, if using the DSPs of the last AVR generation.
gurkey is offline  
post #30370 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 12:22 AM
Member
 
Driver_King's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurkey View Post

I remember a response, stating, that in principle it should be possible, if using the DSPs of the last AVR generation.

It should definitely be possible if there aren't any physical changes to the hardware and DSP's involved. I'm sure it could be done via updated firmware (custom or OEM). Perhaps at a minor charge? I'd pay for it. Audyssey makes such a big difference in my sound system. I can't imagine what 32x higher resolution filters would do.
Driver_King is offline  
post #30371 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 02:14 AM
Member
 
ubernifty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Question. What exactly is the difference between Audyssey MultEQ XT and the newer XT32 version? They both measure audio from 8 listening positions and it's my understanding that the original XT software is capable of working with newer features like Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume just like the original 6 position MultEQ software in the Denon AVR-788 receiver was (I'm aware said receiver didn't have the two Dynamic technologies but it could have with a minor firmware update performed by Denon's repair center if Denon had chosen to release such an update).
ubernifty is offline  
post #30372 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 03:07 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Hugo S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 530
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey View Post

It appears that a firmware bug is emerging as the culprit. We are investigating and will keep you posted on a solution in the form of a firmware update...this only affects the first batch of 3008/5008 units and that it was corrected in the ones following. But, I don't have details on S/Ns yet. I will continue to keep everyone posted as I receive info.

IMHO, beyond the "bugs" inherent to all software development, what appears here, in all this "affair", is the incredible transparency and efficiency to react shown by the Audyssey Team.

BRAVO Chris!

My .02

Hugo
Hugo S is offline  
post #30373 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 06:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gamelover360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Orebro, Sweden!!!
Posts: 2,776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Aren't we returning to the discussion of why we get (sometimes significantly) different results from our calibrations when we change the measurement positions? I don't think we have seen a satisfactory explanation for this, nor do I expect to ever hear one.

To avoid the frustration, I have adopted the practice of always using the same eight measuring positions (at least as close as possible), and have been rewarded by consistent results when I calibrate.

My situation with Audyssey was a little unique because I have two factors that make measurement techniques a little more sensitive.
1) a rather narrow room with an angled ceiling that is only about 3.5 feet high on the low side ( right wall). Plus I sit about 4 feet from the back wall.

2) My subwoofers have non defeatable DSP programs. Luckily they are not doing anything super funky to the signal, mostly effects to the overall output and in some cases the output at certain frequency bands. these are in place to compensate for the loading of the subs (where in the room they are placed and the ensuing effect that will have on the sub's performance). For example, a freestanding placement will need a boost since the sub benefits less from boundaries. A corner placement will usually need a reduction in output...etc.

The nice thing about a well designed dsp is that by selecting the right dsp BEFORE running Audyssey Pro, I was able to get a flatter response from the sub prior to Audyssey doing it's thing. Since Audyssey has rules and limits on cuts and boosts....this is a good thing IMHO. The before graphs with Audyssey Pro were invaluable to me in getting the flattest native response.

My experience with Audyssey has been incredible...and Pro plus Dynamic EQ has really made my speakers work wonderfully in MY ROOM. As Chris is always saying, speakers in a chamber act one way....speakers in your room act another. This is why EQ is so important, and Audyssey is the undisputed king as of now.

To the question of different results with different mic placements.....this is to be expected. Audyssey can only work with teh data you feed it. The more accurate data about what you will hear....the better. So how to capture that accurate data. The BEST method I have found is to use the guidelines in the first post of this thread as a starting point, and adjust ONLY the distance between measurements if it is required in your room.

For example...the 2-3 foot recommendation between placements is good general advice if you want to EQ for a couch as the important listening area and you room is wide enough so that the outermost measurements are not too close to the left and right side walls. I did 5 measurements across the MLP plane (one at the MLP and two to either side towards the right and left side walls), and if I did 2 feet between each measurement, that would give me a bubble width of 8-12 feet (depending on how far you chose between each measurement). I felt this was too wide, because that would put a mic placement almost touchng the left side wall and the rightmost placement would be farther from the wall (because my couch is left justified in my room...angled ceiling) BUT would have the ceiling coming IMO what is too close to the mic (again angled ceiling at work). So I chose 1.5 feet between the two measurements to the left side of the MLP, and about 2 feet between the two measurements to the right side of the MLP.

I have experimented with smaller bubbles, and never did like the results as compared to following the 12 point Audyssey recommendation with a slight reduction in my mic spacing due to my room AND beacuse I only care about EQ'ing my listening area....where my wife and I sit right next to each other on the couch.

Why do I think the smaller bubbles never sounded as good (notably the bass)?
Beacuse my room has room modes like all rooms, and at the MLP I have a decent bump at about 30 hz, a decent dip at 50-70 hz, and the output below 25 hz is less. That is if I were to put the mic at the MLP only. As I add in the data from the other 11 measurements, Audyssey correctly factors in what is going on on those locations....and since what we hear and experience is better defined by looking around the area you listen rather than measuring only at the MLP....my before graphs with Pro show a flatter response. It still is not flat...there is still a bump at 30 hz (but less so), it is still down from 50-70 hz (but less so), and I am still down below 25 hz (but less so).

If I were to compare a smaller bubble to a larger correct bubble this is what I theorize is going on with the subwoofer(actually not really a theory since this is straight from my before graphs using Pro):

Smaller bubble:

-3db point looks to be about 26 hz and down 6db at 19hz, so Audyssey doesn't try and correct below 26 hz.

Up 5 db at 30 hz (so Audyssey cuts 5 db)

Down from 50-70 hz (down the most about 12 db at 60 hz)...so Audyssey raises it 9db.

Larger bubble:

Down about 2 db from 20-26 and then it increases above 26 hz(-3db point looks to be about 19 hz)...so Audyssey will boost 20-26 hz about 2db.

Up 3 db at 30 hz (so Audyssey cuts 3 db)

Down from 50-70 hz (down the most about 9 db at 60 hz)...so Audyssey raises it 9db.


The larger bubble sounded better in the sub region, and I beleive it was due to using the correct size bubble and for the reasons above.


As far as crossovers, using the recommendations of my favorite calibration they would be 70 hz for all except 100 hz for the center. I compared this to 80hz all around. 80hz was the 4th choice for the center speaker, and the second choice for the others. I listened to some scenes from movies (and while it wasn't SUPER extensive...it was getting late)...I only detected what I thought were a couple small instances where I thought I preferred 80 hz. But it was close overall...hard to tell a difinitive difference. So in this case both choices were great. I am using 80hz all around because of those two instances where I thought I heard a difference.
gamelover360 is offline  
post #30374 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 07:05 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,146
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubernifty View Post

Question. What exactly is the difference between Audyssey MultEQ XT and the newer XT32 version?

XT 32 is capable of higher resolution filters. If the filters of XT cannot be shaped to match the problem, then XT 32 is likely to be able to.

If the problems have all been dealt with on an XT system, there should be no difference in the results between XT and XT 32.

XT 32 could be applied to legacy gear, but manufacturers would need to allocate resources to rewriting the firmware.
pepar is offline  
post #30375 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 07:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 7,647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

XT 32 is capable of higher resolution filters. If the filters of XT cannot be shaped to match the problem, then XT 32 is likely to be able to.

If the problems have all been dealt with on an XT system, there should be no difference in the results between XT and XT 32.

Are you sure about that? It seems to me XT 32 will have more data points in every channel filter. Have you seen a chart where XT is perfectly flat to the target curve without smoothing?
Gary J is offline  
post #30376 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 07:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,406
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 862 Post(s)
Liked: 344
XT vs. XT32 - first we would need to know what Audyssey is actually doing. Then and only then it would make sense to determine the number of filters or processing power needed. Everything anybody here states as facts is just speculation, nothing more. It might be correct, it might be wrong. Nobody knows - except Chris.

Per this table Audyssey already offers 128 EQ filters for the subwoofer. I think this is more than enough. The Anti-Mode 8033 has 24 filters and I still have to see a situation where more filters were needed.

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 #30377 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 07:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
audyssey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,150
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

Are you sure about that? It seems to me XT 32 will have more data points in every channel filter. Have you seen a chart where XT is perfectly flat to the target curve without smoothing?

True. The curve will never be perfectly flat. It will be much flatter with XT32 because of the huge increase in points. To Jeff's point, however: there is a point beyond which peaks and dips get so narrow that they are not audible.

The biggest benefit of XT32 in my view is the correction below 200 Hz or so in the satellite speakers. That's a very important region for small rooms because most of the problems are there. XT32 hits that region with many more points than XT.

Chris

Join me for Audyssey Tech Talk on Facebook here.
Follow me @ChrisAudyssey on Twitter here.
audyssey is offline  
post #30378 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 07:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
audyssey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,150
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

Per this table Audyssey already offers 128 EQ filters for the subwoofer. I think this is more than enough. The Anti-Mode 8033 has 24 filters and I still have to see a situation where more filters were needed.

Actually, the numbers in this table are not the number of filters. There is only one filter per channel. It is an FIR filter that has hundreds (or thousands) of coefficients. The numbers represent how many coefficients there are relative to the basic 2EQ filter that has x. We don't publish the number "x" because the method by which Audyssey FIR filters are implemented is not the standard textbook method and so that would lead to misleading comparisons. A frequency warping technique is used to distribute the FFT bins nonlinearly in the frequency domain so that they are narrower in the lower frequencies.

I am not familiar with the filter methods used in the Anti-Mode product. Is it really only 24 bands parametric?

Chris

Join me for Audyssey Tech Talk on Facebook here.
Follow me @ChrisAudyssey on Twitter here.
audyssey is offline  
post #30379 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 07:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JHAz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)
Liked: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

XT vs. XT32 - first we would need to know what Audyssey is actually doing. Then and only then it would make sense to determine the number of filters or processing power needed. Everything anybody here states as facts is just speculation, nothing more. It might be correct, it might be wrong. Nobody knows - except Chris.

Per this table Audyssey already offers 128 EQ filters for the subwoofer. I think this is more than enough. The Anti-Mode 8033 has 24 filters and I still have to see a situation where more filters were needed.

Actually it is more than 128 filters. It is 128 times whatever the undisclosed base is. But that does not mean that more won't help. These are not infinite impulse response filters like a graphic equalizer has. They are FIRs, and they behave differently. You need more individual filters with FIRs, but Audyssey's determination is that they are superior for reasons including the way they handle time-based issues.
JHAz is offline  
post #30380 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 07:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,406
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 862 Post(s)
Liked: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey View Post

I am not familiar with the filter methods used in the Anti-Mode product. Is it really only 24 bands parametric?

Well, you would need to ask "DSpeaker's Chris" but he would probably say something like "Sorry, this is not something that we make public information"

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 #30381 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 07:57 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,146
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey View Post


The biggest benefit of XT32 in my view is the correction below 200 Hz or so in the satellite speakers. That's a very important region for small rooms because most of the problems are there. XT32 hits that region with many more points than XT.

Yes, and I was remiss for not saying that in my post. It brings control to the main channels that had previously only been available on the subwoofer channel (but at a multiple of what had been there). The CW has always been that raising crossovers sent more content to the more precisely controlled sub channel, and now that is no longer the case.

Jeff
pepar is offline  
post #30382 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 09:57 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Yes, and I was remiss for not saying that in my post. It brings control to the main channels that had previously only been available on the subwoofer channel (but at a multiple of what had been there). The CW has always been that raising crossovers sent more content to the more precisely controlled sub channel, and now that is no longer the case.

Jeff



My main speakers (NHT 2.9's) have built in subs (they are rated down to 26hz +/- 3db). I've been running them with an 80hz crossover and letting my james emb-1200 handle the heavy lifting. The 2.9's are bi-ampable at 100hz, and I would like to try them as multiple subs. I have an SEQ and I've never thought about defining two of the channels as some dummy speaker to see what Audyssey would do with them...seeing only 100hz max...might be interesting to try.

But I'm moving to a 4311 when it comes out...multeq XT32 and that should allow me another option since it now has many more filters for all speakers. I will try leaving the fronts as fulls and just routing my LFE to the sub. Alternatively, I can set the front crossovers at different points and see the effect....maybe 40 is the right crossover point.

Or...I could, using the new multi sub capability (if I understand it correctly) biamp the 2.9's and run the bass on the 2.9's to separate amps using the dual sub ouput of the 4311 (and I wonder if I will be able to use an RCA to get sound to my James sub).

Lots of options....but the reason for this long note is that multeq xt32 gives me many new options, especially with the new Audyssey multi sub capability.

I can't wait for my 4311.

Chris...if you get a chance (and if my post is understandable) do you have any comments/suggestions on how to best use XT32 given my speaker capablities.
ghstudio is offline  
post #30383 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 10:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
audyssey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,150
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghstudio View Post

...

Chris...if you get a chance (and if my post is understandable) do you have any comments/suggestions on how to best use XT32 given my speaker capablities.

My suggestion would be to use one sub output of the 4311 to y-cord to the two NHT subs. They are symmetrically placed since they are in your L/R speakers and so you don't have to worry about relative distance differences between them. Then use the other 4311 sub out for your emb-1200 sub.

I can't predict whether leaving the fronts as Large will be helpful or not. My guess is that you still want to cross them over. Most likely between 40-60 Hz. XT32 will be able to give very good correction down there.

Chris

Join me for Audyssey Tech Talk on Facebook here.
Follow me @ChrisAudyssey on Twitter here.
audyssey is offline  
post #30384 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 11:19 AM
Member
 
Shnapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 83
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well calling Onkyo tech support didn't send any sparks of hope up my Ace! I got nothing for an answer on the XT32 bug, kinda mono-tone over there at Onkyo.

We have no reports sir, that is a new unit, thank you have a nice day! WTF is that, I mean come on! I ask one simple question: Does Onkyo work in conjunction with Audyssey on firmware updates or does Onkyo just post updates as they get them from vendors?

We are not aware of any reports or problems sir, thank you have a nice day..

I have never owned Onkyo, my last receiver was/is my Rotel RSX-1065, before that NAD monitor series amps(2x 2100's, 1, 2600A) which I still have and they still work..The 5008 is tracked to my door for a delivery tomorrow, sending it back is going to cost alot of money....
Shnapper is offline  
post #30385 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 11:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
audyssey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,150
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am in communication with Onkyo in Japan since yesterday. They are "looking into it" and I expect to hear more today. I will post info as I get it. I suspect, however, that Onkyo US has not yet been notified. We sent them a heads up yesterday as well.

Chris

Join me for Audyssey Tech Talk on Facebook here.
Follow me @ChrisAudyssey on Twitter here.
audyssey is offline  
post #30386 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 11:27 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,146
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shnapper View Post

Well calling Onkyo tech support didn't send any sparks of hope up my Ace! I got nothing for an answer on the XT32 bug, kinda mono-tone over there at Onkyo.

We have no reports sir, that is a new unit, thank you have a nice day! WTF is that, I mean come on! I ask one simple question: Does Onkyo work in conjunction with Audyssey on firmware updates or does Onkyo just post updates as they get them from vendors?

We are not aware of any reports or problems sir, thank you have a nice day..

I have never owned Onkyo, my last receiver was/is my Rotel RSX-1065, before that NAD monitor series amps(2x 2100's, 1, 2600A) which I still have and they still work..The 5008 is tracked to my door for a delivery tomorrow, sending it back is going to cost alot of money....

Patience, grasshopper.
pepar is offline  
post #30387 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 11:36 AM
Member
 
pulse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Will the mics supplied with XT32 Recievers etc still be +/-2db of reference ? What products have the mics calibrated to reference ?
pulse is offline  
post #30388 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 11:47 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,146
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by pulse View Post

Will the mics supplied with XT32 Recievers etc still be +/-2db of reference ? What products have the mics calibrated to reference ?

IIRC, the tolerance for the mics that come with the receiver/processor is +/-2dB. The calibration file built into the receiver/processor is to reference, so the mics are +/-2dB in relation to reference.

Or were you asking something else?
pepar is offline  
post #30389 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 11:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 7,647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shnapper View Post

Well calling Onkyo tech support didn't send any sparks of hope up my Ace!

Dollars to donuts the Denon works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shnapper View Post

The 5008 is tracked to my door for a delivery tomorrow, sending it back is going to cost alot of money....

Not Satisfied with a Credit Card Purchase? You Have Rights!
Gary J is offline  
post #30390 of 72815 Old 09-01-2010, 11:58 AM
Member
 
pulse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

IIRC, the tolerance for the mics that come with the receiver/processor is +/-2dB. The calibration file built into the receiver/processor is to reference, so the mics are +/-2dB in relation to reference.

Or were you asking something else?

Ok got that pepar Yes are there any mics that are included with any products that are 0db tolerance to reference ?
pulse is offline  
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