"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779) - Page 2378 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #71311 of 71843 Old 05-30-2014, 02:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
primetimeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 3,664
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by William Moore View Post

Hello. I was on this thread a couple of weeks ago but had to turn my attention to other things, and I feel that I still haven't resolved my issue. I have a Marantz SR7007 receiver and my left surround has become noticeable lower that my right and rear surrounds. I confirmed this when I played my Video Essentials audio level test while using my trusty Radio Shack meter. The left surround is at least 2 db lower than the others. I was just going to increase the level of that channel, but I read in the manual that if any speaker level adjustments are made after running Audyssey, the DynamiEQ won't work. So I feel like I should run the entire set-up again to see if doing that will restore the low left surround channel; or, should I bring up the level of that channel first manually BEFORE re-running Audyssey. Comments? Thanks! One more thought. Should I use all 8 mic positions for best results?

If you really feel your SPL meter and measurement technique is more accurate than Audyssey then go ahead and bump up that channel a couple db to your liking.  DynEQ will continue to work just fine and you haven't done anything other than make yourself happy and make the sound more to your liking.

primetimeguy is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #71312 of 71843 Old 05-30-2014, 04:50 PM
Senior Member
 
William Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wichita, Kansas
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 11
OK, thanks. I'll do another 8-point calibration and report back if it solves my problem.

William R. Moore
William Moore is offline  
post #71313 of 71843 Old 05-30-2014, 04:57 PM
Senior Member
 
William Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wichita, Kansas
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by primetimeguy View Post

If you really feel your SPL meter and measurement technique is more accurate than Audyssey then go ahead and bump up that channel a couple db to your liking.  DynEQ will continue to work just fine and you haven't done anything other than make yourself happy and make the sound more to your liking.
Well, I'm not really sure what caused my left surround speaker to drop in volume. It wasn't this way until fairly recently and wasn't the result of anything I did. Anyway, it can't hurt to run the set-up program again to re-calibrate all the channels.

William R. Moore
William Moore is offline  
post #71314 of 71843 Old 05-30-2014, 05:02 PM
Super Moderator
 
markrubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 22,691
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 268
thread cleanup smile.gif

Please take the high road in every post
Please do not quote or respond to problematic posts: report them to mods to handle
Link to sponsors
good to be back to vBulletin
markrubin is online now  
post #71315 of 71843 Old 05-31-2014, 04:00 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,486
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 471 Post(s)
Liked: 1219
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComponentActual View Post
 

Still a bit confused on how all of Audyssey's tech works. My basic understanding is that MultEq and its various iterations corrects for how your room sounds. And I am assuming it also corrects for how your speakers sound to whatever extent that it can. Is this correct? I always hear about room correction but not much about speaker correction. Like if you have front towers that are warmer and not as bright as your center and surrounds would it try to help raise the upper frequency on the towers to help get them tonaly matched to the rest of your speakers?

 

My understanding of DynamicEQ is that it works to boost the bass, and surrounds when listening at lower than reference volume. Is this correct.

 

My understanding of Dynamic Volume is that it works basically works to keep anything from playing too loudly. But does it also boost quite stuff to make it easy to hear at low volume? Or is that more in the dynamicEQ department? Is Dyanamic Volume like DynamicEQ in that it does progressively more or less as you get closer to reference volume.

 

Then finally there is Reference Volume Offset which seems to be the most confusing and least documented part of Audyssey. I understand that DynamicEQ does less and less the closer you get to Reference Level, and that you can kind of trick Dynamic volume by turning up you source level input, so that Dynamic volume will think your are listening at a quieter volume than you really are and thus make more adjustments than it normally would at that given volume, but how does this compare to reference level offset?

 

Is Reference Level Offset of 10, say equal to turning up the source level input by 10, turning it down by 10?

 

You have pretty much 'got it'. Take a look at the FAQ which explores all the things you mention in detail, plus other things you don't mention but which are useful to know.

 

For example:

 

a)0.   What is Audyssey?

 

a)3.   I keep reading about Reference Level'. What is it?

 

g)1.   What is Dynamic Volume?
 

g)2.   What is Dynamic EQ?
 

g)3.   What is Reference Level Offset in Dynamic EQ?

 

h)3.   How does MultEQ differ from my old graphic equaliser'?
 

h)4.   How does MultEQ differ from other room equalisation methods?

 

And much more...

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #71316 of 71843 Old 05-31-2014, 07:00 PM
Advanced Member
 
Tom Riddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Lumberton, TX
Posts: 545
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Well I just got a new SVS PB-2000 to replace my PB12-NSD and my Audyssey mic has crapped out. It's floating between 4-12 db, unless I hold it the cord tight and then it jumps to 85 and stays. Looks like a phone call is in my future.

fdsfds
Tom Riddle is online now  
post #71317 of 71843 Old 06-01-2014, 04:02 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,486
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 471 Post(s)
Liked: 1219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Riddle View Post

Well I just got a new SVS PB-2000 to replace my PB12-NSD and my Audyssey mic has crapped out. It's floating between 4-12 db, unless I hold it the cord tight and then it jumps to 85 and stays. Looks like a phone call is in my future.

 

Might be worth reading these FAQ answers before replacing the mic...

 

d)4.   Do I have to use the mic that came with my AVR or PrePro?

 

d)9.   Mic cable integrity issue.

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #71318 of 71843 Old 06-01-2014, 04:22 AM
Advanced Member
 
Tom Riddle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Lumberton, TX
Posts: 545
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Might be worth reading these FAQ answers before replacing the mic...

d)4.   Do I have to use the mic that came with my AVR or PrePro?

d)9.   Mic cable integrity issue.

Very interesting regarding the mic - I plan to call Onkyo today to see if they can get me the same mic for the NR1010. My problem seems to be similar to the integrity issue listed, but I didn't have any cuts. It's as if there is a kink somewhere and once pulled tight it operates normally.

fdsfds
Tom Riddle is online now  
post #71319 of 71843 Old 06-01-2014, 08:56 AM
Member
 
anoutsos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have a question about Audyssey room equalisation and speaker matching. I have recently replaced my B&W 685 fronts with 805 diamonds and moved the 685s to the rear. More importantly, my front stage is now composed of 2 805d's and an HTM62. People have told me, although I had already suspected it, that the HTM62 is a poor match for the 805d's. OK, of course it is. The best match according to the measurements is an HTM4. I think that those who say this are referring to the frequency response, which is almost identical between the 805d and the HTM4. However, these measurements are made in an anechoic chamber and I listen in my room, so I expect my speaker+room's response to be completely different to the lab measurements. In fact, I have measured it and indeed it is.

So, my question is, can Audyssey make my poorly matched centre, HTM62, a good match for the 805d's?

I should say that after having listened to the 805d's, the difference in clarity and imaging from the 600 series is probably something that no room equalisation can account for. So, can someone explain to me based on which factors two speakers are well matched or not, if not their response?

Thanks,
Aris.
anoutsos is offline  
post #71320 of 71843 Old 06-01-2014, 01:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pbarach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 2,483
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by anoutsos View Post

I have a question about Audyssey room equalisation and speaker matching. I have recently replaced my B&W 685 fronts with 805 diamonds and moved the 685s to the rear. More importantly, my front stage is now composed of 2 805d's and an HTM62. People have told me, although I had already suspected it, that the HTM62 is a poor match for the 805d's. OK, of course it is. The best match according to the measurements is an HTM4. I think that those who say this are referring to the frequency response, which is almost identical between the 805d and the HTM4. However, these measurements are made in an anechoic chamber and I listen in my room, so I expect my speaker+room's response to be completely different to the lab measurements. In fact, I have measured it and indeed it is.

So, my question is, can Audyssey make my poorly matched centre, HTM62, a good match for the 805d's?

I should say that after having listened to the 805d's, the difference in clarity and imaging from the 600 series is probably something that no room equalisation can account for. So, can someone explain to me based on which factors two speakers are well matched or not, if not their response?

Thanks,
Aris.

I don't know about your particular set of speakers, but Audyssey will likely provide better timbre matching of these speakers than you get without Audyssey, but it may not may a perfect match. I can tell you that I was using a KEF center channel with my B&W 704 front speakers, and Audyssey improved the timbre matching. But I get still better matching after replacing the center channel with a B&W HTM-7.

AT&T U-Verse Northeast Ohio

Denon x4000, Samsung LED TV, B&W 704 mains, two M&K subwoofers, Oppo 103, etc.
pbarach is offline  
post #71321 of 71843 Old 06-01-2014, 10:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 237
So do you guys suggest setting phase for each sub manually for max spl at listening position and then run audyssey? Or does it matter. Each of my 2 sub channels is running 2 subs.

Blazar!
blazar is offline  
post #71322 of 71843 Old 06-02-2014, 03:05 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,486
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 471 Post(s)
Liked: 1219
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post

So do you guys suggest setting phase for each sub manually for max spl at listening position and then run audyssey? Or does it matter. Each of my 2 sub channels is running 2 subs.

 

It may not specifically address that situation but this FAQ answer has useful info you might be interested in:

 

f)8.    How does Audyssey handle complex multiple subwoofer setups?

 

Also, click the link to the 'Sub Distance Tweak' in my sig...

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #71323 of 71843 Old 06-02-2014, 05:20 AM
Advanced Member
 
dftkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 786
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Hi everyone,

After I run Audyssey, I am measuring results with a Behringer microphone. Should I point the microphone straight up like the Audyssey mic? Or angle it slightly towards the front of the room?

Thanks!
Dan

Little Loft Home Theater
dftkell is online now  
post #71324 of 71843 Old 06-02-2014, 07:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MCaugusto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BOSTON --- MA ---
Posts: 1,196
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 30
I imagine you want to measure the room's frequency response after running Audyssey by connecting the Behringer microphone to a Behringer DEQ2496 digital equalizer, correct ?
I own four Behringer DEQ2496 which were used for equalization of my 7.2 channel home theater but no longer needed since i bought an Integra A/V processor that has Audyssey MultEQ XT32. I now use my four units only for the purpose of displaying direct frequency response (1/6 octave display panel) of the combined L+R inputs of the front channels (1), center channel (2), side channels (3) and rear channels (4).
On top of that i also have connected to my system an older (1980's) but very accurate and bigger 1/3 octave display analyzer from Gold Line that uses very bright red LEDs for its display making it easily seen across a room, so i decided to connect my Behringer microphone to it for displaying the actual frequency response of my home theater room.
When aiming the microphone you should try to place it as close as possible to the same location you used for the Audyssey microphone including ear height but aim it toward the front of the room ever so slightly elevated and equidistant to L+R front channels - think of a microphone located inside your head trying to mimic a hearing system consisting of two ears with the best compromise being placing the microphone equidistant to both ears.
MCaugusto is offline  
post #71325 of 71843 Old 06-02-2014, 11:54 AM
Member
 
ComponentActual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 10

If the tweeter on your towers is a little lower than the listening position is it best to place the setup mic in line with the tweeter or at the height of the listening position, (difference of about 6 inches in my case). What I am doing now is placing the mic at the listening position height for 5 of the 8 positions, and placing it 6 inches lower in line with the tower tweeters for 3 of the positions.

ComponentActual is offline  
post #71326 of 71843 Old 06-02-2014, 03:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JHAz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComponentActual View Post

If the tweeter on your towers is a little lower than the listening position is it best to place the setup mic in line with the tweeter or at the height of the listening position, (difference of about 6 inches in my case). What I am doing now is placing the mic at the listening position height for 5 of the 8 positions, and placing it 6 inches lower in line with the tower tweeters for 3 of the positions.

I don t know that this is true, or universally true. Measurements by the folks at Stereophile show that some speakers appear to be optimized for an axis other than the tweeter axis. Testing on the tweeter axis is, in the end, nothing but an accepted standard. The tweeter's output is almost certain to be adequately dispersed in the vertical plane to make zero difference from an octave or so above the crossover. The axis on which the tweeter and mid or woofer best combine in the octave or so around the crossover depends. it is AFAIK why some speakers have their tweeters connected in the opposite polarity from the mid/woofer - better summing on the intended listening axis. I'd just as soon have my corrections reflect where my ears are, rather than where they would be if I were taller or shorter or closer to or farther from the speakers (onaccounta it's all about angles, it's really location difference conflated with distance, and the sum of mid plus tweeter on the tweeter axis at one meter will be different from their sum on the same axis at 15 feet - we're talking about soundwaves with wavelengths only inches long, so relatively minor offsets can significantly change the relative phase of, say, the 2000 Hz emission of the mid versus the 2000 Hz emission of the tweeter, changing overall frequency response.
JHAz is online now  
post #71327 of 71843 Old 06-02-2014, 04:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 237
... All that is why bypass audyssey L/R seems compelling...

Blazar!
blazar is offline  
post #71328 of 71843 Old 06-02-2014, 05:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
batpig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 23,792
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 925
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post

... All that is why bypass audyssey L/R seems compelling...

How so? The conclusion you got from that is to bypass room correction alltogether??

batpig's "Denon-to-English Dictionary"
Setup Guide and FAQ
http://batpigworld.com/

Become a fan "batpigworld.com" on Facebook!
batpig is online now  
post #71329 of 71843 Old 06-02-2014, 05:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

How so? The conclusion you got from that is to bypass room correction alltogether??

Bass frequency correction seems a bit more of a coherent idea, i just havent been convinced on my mains that audyssey flat or audyssey in general was better than using audyssey L/R bypass as far as the final sound is concerned.

Audyssey flat can defintely get you a decent flat response though at main measurement position.
jjazdk likes this.

Blazar!
blazar is offline  
post #71330 of 71843 Old 06-03-2014, 07:06 AM
Advanced Member
 
fitzcaraldo215's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 980
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post

Bass frequency correction seems a bit more of a coherent idea, i just havent been convinced on my mains that audyssey flat or audyssey in general was better than using audyssey L/R bypass as far as the final sound is concerned.

Audyssey flat can defintely get you a decent flat response though at main measurement position.

It is your system, so you are, of course, free to use whatever settings you prefer. Having used Audyssey, including the Pro version, for quite some time, I do not like the flat or "music" setting at all. I am primarily a music listener and I go to a great many live classical concerts. I find that the normal HF rolloff built into Audyssey sounds more like those live concerts in the hall.

We are all used to flat measured response curves for electronics and even for speakers anechoically. But, there is very good acoustic theory that says room response should not measure flat because that makes the sound perceptually brighter than the real thing live due to room reflections. It is a bigger problem in large spaces, so movie theaters and movie mastering do not use flat response. Rather, they use the SMPTE X-curve which includes HF rolloff. The "normal" Audyssey curve includes an adaptation of this to home theater use. There has already been much discussion of this here, now buried in many pages of discussion. There are also many independent discussions leading to the same conclusion. Most other Room EQ packages also build HF rolloff into their default target curves for the same reasons. I think the concept is also valid for music as well as movies.

Flat is the right way to go for near field listening, such as with computer speakers, because room reflections are not a significant factor there. But, for normal listening in a room, I think the Audyssey standard curve is the way to go, even for music. It is quite well designed, and it works quite well. Note that it would have been much easier and cheaper for Audyssey and others to just leave everything flat and not provide the rolloff. They include it for a reason, and a good one, I think.
audiofan1 likes this.
fitzcaraldo215 is offline  
post #71331 of 71843 Old 06-03-2014, 08:19 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
batpig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 23,792
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 925
Onkyo's decision to name the flat curve as "music" was a terrible misnomer that I'm sure has sown much confusion.

batpig's "Denon-to-English Dictionary"
Setup Guide and FAQ
http://batpigworld.com/

Become a fan "batpigworld.com" on Facebook!
batpig is online now  
post #71332 of 71843 Old 06-03-2014, 11:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
blazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzcaraldo215 View Post

It is your system, so you are, of course, free to use whatever settings you prefer. Having used Audyssey, including the Pro version, for quite some time, I do not like the flat or "music" setting at all. I am primarily a music listener and I go to a great many live classical concerts. I find that the normal HF rolloff built into Audyssey sounds more like those live concerts in the hall.

We are all used to flat measured response curves for electronics and even for speakers anechoically. But, there is very good acoustic theory that says room response should not measure flat because that makes the sound perceptually brighter than the real thing live due to room reflections. It is a bigger problem in large spaces, so movie theaters and movie mastering do not use flat response. Rather, they use the SMPTE X-curve which includes HF rolloff. The "normal" Audyssey curve includes an adaptation of this to home theater use. There has already been much discussion of this here, now buried in many pages of discussion. There are also many independent discussions leading to the same conclusion. Most other Room EQ packages also build HF rolloff into their default target curves for the same reasons. I think the concept is also valid for music as well as movies.

Flat is the right way to go for near field listening, such as with computer speakers, because room reflections are not a significant factor there. But, for normal listening in a room, I think the Audyssey standard curve is the way to go, even for music. It is quite well designed, and it works quite well. Note that it would have been much easier and cheaper for Audyssey and others to just leave everything flat and not provide the rolloff. They include it for a reason, and a good one, I think.

Great, thanks for the reply

Perhaps the reason that flat or bypass sounds fine in my particular room is the highly treated nature of the room with diffusion (mostly) and absorption materials. Perhaps the HF rolloff is less of an issue in that circumstance.

Would it be fair to say that audyssey makes the biggest difference in an untreated room?

I do have good hearing up to 20000hz although i havet tested my own personal hearing related high frequency attenuation.

I'll try all the modes back to back and see if I can tell which is which with someone else changing the mode too.

Blazar!
blazar is offline  
post #71333 of 71843 Old 06-03-2014, 01:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
dftkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 786
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCaugusto View Post

I imagine you want to measure the room's frequency response after running Audyssey by connecting the Behringer microphone to a Behringer DEQ2496 digital equalizer, correct ?
I own four Behringer DEQ2496 which were used for equalization of my 7.2 channel home theater but no longer needed since i bought an Integra A/V processor that has Audyssey MultEQ XT32. I now use my four units only for the purpose of displaying direct frequency response (1/6 octave display panel) of the combined L+R inputs of the front channels (1), center channel (2), side channels (3) and rear channels (4).
On top of that i also have connected to my system an older (1980's) but very accurate and bigger 1/3 octave display analyzer from Gold Line that uses very bright red LEDs for its display making it easily seen across a room, so i decided to connect my Behringer microphone to it for displaying the actual frequency response of my home theater room.
When aiming the microphone you should try to place it as close as possible to the same location you used for the Audyssey microphone including ear height but aim it toward the front of the room ever so slightly elevated and equidistant to L+R front channels - think of a microphone located inside your head trying to mimic a hearing system consisting of two ears with the best compromise being placing the microphone equidistant to both ears.
Thanks!

Little Loft Home Theater
dftkell is online now  
post #71334 of 71843 Old 06-04-2014, 07:10 AM
Advanced Member
 
fitzcaraldo215's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 980
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post

Great, thanks for the reply

Perhaps the reason that flat or bypass sounds fine in my particular room is the highly treated nature of the room with diffusion (mostly) and absorption materials. Perhaps the HF rolloff is less of an issue in that circumstance.

Would it be fair to say that audyssey makes the biggest difference in an untreated room?

I do have good hearing up to 20000hz although i havet tested my own personal hearing related high frequency attenuation.

I'll try all the modes back to back and see if I can tell which is which with someone else changing the mode too.

There is a bit more to Audyssey's default target curve than just the prominent rolloff above about 15K. There is also a gradual downward slope going up from about 2k, which is perhaps even more important sonically. And, there is also the Midrange Compensation (MRC) dip between 2k and 3k. The flat curve eliminates all of these, although in some processors, not sure which, the MRC dip (aka the BBC dip) is left in place for the flat curve. That dip compensates for the difference in driver directivity in the crossover region typical of many speakers, and many people prefer it. I do not and I turn it off with Audyssey Pro because I use Martin Logan electrostats which have no crossover anywhere near there.

It is possible that your room treatments provide similar frequency domain tailoring to the sound, though probably not the MRC. But, whether the room is treated or not, Audyssey will adjust the in room frequency response to be the same according to its target curve. Treatments might reduce reflections and this might improve impulse and time domain response. It is very difficult to treat properly for deep bass response because of the large wavelengths and very large structures necessary.

To me, the ideal room would use both careful, professionally calibrated treatments and EQ. If I were only able to have one of these, as I am now, I would choose EQ. It is quite effective and much easier and cheaper to do, and it requires much less expertise in room acoustics, which is a very complex and tricky subject. Also, unlike room treatments, I can switch it on and off to quickly hear the difference.
fitzcaraldo215 is offline  
post #71336 of 71843 Old 06-05-2014, 01:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rickardl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzcaraldo215 View Post

There is a bit more to Audyssey's default target curve than just the prominent rolloff above about 15K. There is also a gradual downward slope going up from about 2k, which is perhaps even more important sonically. And, there is also the Midrange Compensation (MRC) dip between 2k and 3k.
What is the "gradual downward slope going up from about 2k"?
This is the actual Audyssey Reference "curve" in blue with the MRC centered around 2k. The red line shows the THX Re-EQ roll off. Flat is at 0dB.
rickardl is online now  
post #71337 of 71843 Old 06-05-2014, 07:43 AM
Advanced Member
 
fitzcaraldo215's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 980
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickardl View Post

What is the "gradual downward slope going up from about 2k"?
This is the actual Audyssey Reference "curve" in blue with the MRC centered around 2k. The red line shows the THX Re-EQ roll off. Flat is at 0dB.

2K as the starting point was only my guesstimate based on looking at out of scale renderings of the curve in Audyssey Pro. So, it might start a bit higher, say 4k, gradually. The point is that the response as we get to 10k and above is a few dB below flat, with more rapid rolloff above about 15k. Apparently, THX has even more rolloff in the frequency domain but without the increase in slope in the top octave. I have seen recommendations for other EQ packages that start the gradual rolloff as low as 1k, which might not be a significant difference.

It is an unrelated issue, but I do not use THX myself because my perception is that it does more to the sound than just apply a frequency domain target curve. But, then, I use my system mainly for music, which employs no elements of THX in recording and mastering. I do not like what THX does to the imaging of Mch music. Actually, I do not even like it for movies. But, to use THX or not is a whole different argument and about much more than target curves.
fitzcaraldo215 is offline  
post #71338 of 71843 Old 06-05-2014, 09:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
beastaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Western NC
Posts: 6,916
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 546
Quote:
I have seen recommendations for other EQ packages that start the gradual rolloff as low as 1k, which might not be a significant difference.

Actually, some other very significant studies show a gradual 10dB slope from the bottom (say 10hz) of the FR to the top is generally preferred by most trained listeners, as well as novices alike.

EDIT: removed xcurve as bp explains it better below.

(European models do not accept banana plugs.)

 

"If you done it, it ain't bragging." ~ Walt Whitman

 

AE TD12x SEOS12 Build

Beast's DIY Master Measurement Thread

DIY Emminence Coaxial Surround Thread

beastaudio is offline  
post #71339 of 71843 Old 06-05-2014, 09:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
batpig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 23,792
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 925
While you are right about the second part, the X-curve does not work that way. The roll-off on the X-curve starts at 2khz. For example see this article: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_9_2/feature-article-curves-6-2002.html

Quote:
Also known as the wide-range or eXtended range curve, the X-Curve is defined in ISO Bulletin 2969 as pink noise, at the listening position in a dubbing situation or two-thirds of the way back in a theater, to be flat to 2 kHz, rolling off 3 dB/octave after that.


I think you are mistakenly conflating the X-curve (which isn't really an EQ curve per se, but rather is about compensating for the reverberant characteristics of different rooms) with PREFERENCE tests like the famous Harman study.
ambesolman likes this.

batpig's "Denon-to-English Dictionary"
Setup Guide and FAQ
http://batpigworld.com/

Become a fan "batpigworld.com" on Facebook!
batpig is online now  
post #71340 of 71843 Old 06-05-2014, 10:18 AM
Member
 
ComponentActual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 10

I just returned a Denon x2000, in exchange for an Onkyo TX-NR818, I liked the Denon, but decided I wanted Audyssey DSX, and Neo X, and the option to do 9.1 with external amp. Anyway last night I hooked it up and ran Audyssey MultEQ XT 32, and was surprised to see that my distance settings were all in half foot increments. I am pretty sure that the Denon which had the lower level MultEQ XT  could determine speaker distance to within 1/10th of a foot. How precise do speaker distance settings need to be for Audyssey to do its thing? Will I not be getting the full benefit of MultEQ XT 32 with these less precise measurements?

ComponentActual 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

    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