any suggestions for cables? - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 873 Old 12-19-2012, 06:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 498 Post(s)
Liked: 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

Lord, I'm never gonna read all that.
Sorry about that. Didn't get the memo on maximum word count biggrin.gif. I will err on the side of saying much less here. Let's see if that works for you.
Quote:
I'm not one who ever suggested Audyssey does even what it tries to do perfectly, and AFAIK, Audyssey never said it was perfect in itself.
Don't expect it to be perfect. Expect it to not screw up the sound and make it worse than doing nothing! There is a heck of a distance between where it landed, to "good" let alone perfect.
Quote:
You were banging on and on about reference, and the term "reference level" has an actual meaning, and if you use it with the actual meaning you can discuss it meaningfully.
Nope. Keith didn't talk about levels in the context of "reference" in his FAQ and neither was I. It is an orthogonal topic to what is being discussed. If you want to know why, you have to read my last reply to you.
Quote:
FWIW, I was able to discover a fair amount about how movie mixing stages are calibrated, what the standards are, etc. with a half hour of googling a couple years ago. If I kept any of the citations, I lost them in a hard disk crash because it's not critical stuff that I backed up. Google for yourself or continue to appear ignorant. No difference to me. If you prefer to pour a personal definition into the term like so many novices do around here, then conversation is of course impossible (although clearly it can get very very long). I would never expect a home theater to sound like a mixing stage simply because the way smaller rooms work sonically is too different from the way big rooms work sonically. If you want "proof" Todd-ao and others actually calibrate their mixing stages, search for FilmMixer. He mixes at one of those stages and comments not infrequently on calibration, and the fact that it recurs even without equipment changes. The notion that they would not follow their own industry standards, which you seem to assume, strikes me as absurd. As you ignored in my relatively simple post, Audyssey does NOT follow the X curve. The X curve that movie mixing stages are calibrated to rolls off the highs more than Audyssey.
So after insisting there is a reference that all the mixing rooms are following as a defense of what Keith had written, you say that is not what Audyssey is using? Why are you arguing with me then? That is what I was telling Keith. Maybe you too can conference and get a common story between you on what he means by "reference." And no, it ain't about the levels.

BTW, I do know FilmMixer. But importantly, I know the industry experts who are examining the disaster that is called X-curve. Your understanding of X-curve and the meaning of compliance with it is unfortunately not correct . I suggest reading AES paper, " A New Draught Proposal for the Calibration of Sound in Cinema Rooms (21/4/12)" by Newell and Holland. In there, they show measurements of 11 Dolby certified Mixing Rooms ("dubbing theaters") and real theaters both of which are calibrated according to X-curve. The graph to the left shows this and on the right is the same for theaters which supposed to match it:

i-T8JTZmn.png

Still think these rooms all sound the same and stick to some standard that makes them so? If so, here is the authors of the paper:

"Figure 1 shows a set of response curves from the calibration positions of 20 different rooms, most of which are considered to sound noticeably different from each other."

BTW, a listening room was created for a famous director to mimic the sound of one of the rooms at Todd-AO so that he could hear the same thing at home. It got there by using identical speakers and auto eq system. Guess whose technology they are using? JBL Synthesis SDEC-4500. Same system that did best in the blind study I showed! biggrin.gif

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 873 Old 12-19-2012, 08:51 PM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I am a data driven guy
No, you are sales driven.
Quote:
and don’t go by folklore on the web.
That's true. You create them instead: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1326576/usb-vs-hdmi-for-2ch-audio-to-receiver
diomania is offline  
post #183 of 873 Old 12-20-2012, 03:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,546
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 1243
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
You were banging on and on about reference, and the term "reference level" has an actual meaning, and if you use it with the actual meaning you can discuss it meaningfully.
Nope. Keith didn't talk about levels in the context of "reference" in his FAQ and neither was I. It is an orthogonal topic to what is being discussed. If you want to know why, you have to read my last reply to you.
 

 

At least try to get it right. From the FAQ:

 

 

a)3. I keep reading about 'Reference Level'. What is it?
 
Reference Level is a standard defined for movie studio mixing rooms and commercial cinemas. Every studio mixing room and every movie theatre is calibrated to this same standard level - hence the term 'Reference Level'.
 
The standard calls for an average of 85dB when using band-limited (500 Hz to 2,000 Hz) pink noise at the Main Listening Position. The peak level is set at 20dB higher for a maximum per channel of 105dB in the satellites, and an additional +10dB for a maximum of 115dB in the Low Frequency Effects channel (the '.1' in DD/DTS 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1).
 
The full content of that answer is here:

 

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

kbarnes701 is online now  
post #184 of 873 Old 12-20-2012, 09:17 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 498 Post(s)
Liked: 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

At least try to get it right. From the FAQ:
Hmmm. This is what you quoted *in this thread* from your FAQ which I was addressing:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

a)4. Reference or Preference - which is best?
 
This is a topic which is always fiercely debated in the Official Audyssey Thread. The first thing to understand is that there are really no 'rights' or 'wrongs' as far as your home cinema goes. It is your equipment, paid for with your money and listened to with your ears. So if you prefer a little more bass after your Audyssey calibration, then turn up the bass trim in your AVR. And if you prefer a little less, then turn it down.
 
But before you do that, it is really important to understand the basic goal of the Audyssey technology:
 
Audyssey has been developed to solve room acoustics problems and the sound degradations they cause. The goal of Audyssey is not to shape the sound to your preference, but rather to shape the sound to Reference.

Your FAQ continues that section with:
Quote:
Originally Posted by "kbarnes701 
"'Reference' is described more fully elsewhere in this FAQ - see the link at the bottom of this answer.

Audyssey does this by measuring your room and your speakers together, as a system, and then creates correction filters based on those measurements. The reference point for this acoustical correction is based on the only known standard: the mixing room calibration curve used in all film production sound mixing studios.

So as you see, the discussion here has nothing to do with levels but the type of sound we are getting ('filtering...to match file production mixing studio"). Nevertheless member JHAz started to talk about Reference Level, schooling me on not knowing what that is even though clearly neither you or I were talking about that. And further, I have not objected to that section.

The discussion and my points have all been toward sections quoted in this post. You say the system is trying to make everything sound the same as the mixing room. Yet Audyssey has no insight into that since the frequency response of the recording is not supplied to us and at any rate, varies significantly from mixing stage to another. Therefore any attempt to try to match what is there is futile. It is a more or less random guess that listeners are finding objectionable -- both in the published double blind studies and presumably among the users here or you wouldn't be saying what you are saying above. The system is claiming the rose should be purple even though most everyone would think of red as a more appropriate color.

There is indeed a "right answer." How do we know that? We test people. Countless tests of speakers have been published and they point to a few concepts which are violated here. Most important one says that we like to see smooth frequency response (don't confuse this with "flat"). We see what happens when Audyssey doesn't do this. It garners responses like "colored." Of course it is colored or else we should throw out the concept of frequency response if all of those variations are just fine.

Same studies say that we must not take out the room gain (the boost in low frequencies). It is very easy to design a speaker where its response drops off in low frequencies. But studies show that if you do that, even though your measured frequency response is more flat, consumers prefer that less. We all live in enclosed spaces and our voices and sounds we hear are always subjected to what the room does. Therefore that is what is considered "normal." Our voices in a big field, not so much. If you are going to flip a coin on what is right, at least do it in favor of the customer who paid for the technology!

Given all the data and research I have put forward, would you agree that your FAQ quoted above paints a picture that is not defensible?

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #185 of 873 Old 12-20-2012, 10:16 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,546
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 1243
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

At least try to get it right. From the FAQ:
Hmmm. This is what you quoted *in this thread* from your FAQ which I was addressing:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

a)4. Reference or Preference - which is best?
 
This is a topic which is always fiercely debated in the Official Audyssey Thread. The first thing to understand is that there are really no 'rights' or 'wrongs' as far as your home cinema goes. It is your equipment, paid for with your money and listened to with your ears. So if you prefer a little more bass after your Audyssey calibration, then turn up the bass trim in your AVR. And if you prefer a little less, then turn it down.
 
But before you do that, it is really important to understand the basic goal of the Audyssey technology:
 
Audyssey has been developed to solve room acoustics problems and the sound degradations they cause. The goal of Audyssey is not to shape the sound to your preference, but rather to shape the sound to Reference.

Your FAQ continues that section with:
Quote:
Originally Posted by "kbarnes701 
"'Reference' is described more fully elsewhere in this FAQ - see the link at the bottom of this answer.

Audyssey does this by measuring your room and your speakers together, as a system, and then creates correction filters based on those measurements. The reference point for this acoustical correction is based on the only known standard: the mixing room calibration curve used in all film production sound mixing studios.

So as you see, the discussion here has nothing to do with levels but the type of sound we are getting ('filtering...to match file production mixing studio"). Nevertheless member JHAz started to talk about Reference Level, schooling me on not knowing what that is even though clearly neither you or I were talking about that. And further, I have not objected to that section.

The discussion and my points have all been toward sections quoted in this post. You say the system is trying to make everything sound the same as the mixing room. Yet Audyssey has no insight into that since the frequency response of the recording is not supplied to us and at any rate, varies significantly from mixing stage to another. Therefore any attempt to try to match what is there is futile. It is a more or less random guess that listeners are finding objectionable -- both in the published double blind studies and presumably among the users here or you wouldn't be saying what you are saying above. The system is claiming the rose should be purple even though most everyone would think of red as a more appropriate color.

There is indeed a "right answer." How do we know that? We test people. Countless tests of speakers have been published and they point to a few concepts which are violated here. Most important one says that we like to see smooth frequency response (don't confuse this with "flat"). We see what happens when Audyssey doesn't do this. It garners responses like "colored." Of course it is colored or else we should throw out the concept of frequency response if all of those variations are just fine.

Same studies say that we must not take out the room gain (the boost in low frequencies). It is very easy to design a speaker where its response drops off in low frequencies. But studies show that if you do that, even though your measured frequency response is more flat, consumers prefer that less. We all live in enclosed spaces and our voices and sounds we hear are always subjected to what the room does. Therefore that is what is considered "normal." Our voices in a big field, not so much. If you are going to flip a coin on what is right, at least do it in favor of the customer who paid for the technology!

Given all the data and research I have put forward, would you agree that your FAQ quoted above paints a picture that is not defensible?

 

I quoted originally from the FAQ because YOU selectively quoted part of it, ignoring the context. If you had read the FAQ instead of skimming it for out-of-context quotes to support your agenda you would see exactly what "Reference" is, as defined there and as defined by the second quote I have provided. You said before that I "didn't talk about levels in the context of "reference" in his FAQ"  and I have provided you with the proof that the FAQ talks about Reference in the context of levels. You can squirm and misquote as much as you like - the reality is that you had (until just pointed out to you) absolutely no idea what "Reference" means in the context of movie sound mixing and thus everything you say that follows from your ignorance on this matter is nonsense.

 

The FAQ does not "continue" with the section I have subsequently posted but precedes it. Thus the frame of reference for the discussion of 'Reference' is quite obvious. 

 

I really do think you're a funny guy, digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole of your own making, but please don't lecture me on what 'Reference Level' means in the pro movie mixing world, especially as it is clear you had never even heard the term until a day or so ago.  Like I said, at least try to get it right.

 

This discussion of the Audyssey FAQ is OT in this thread so I will not make further comment on it here.

 

If you wish to further your understanding of Audyssey, I suggest you post in the Official Audyssey Thread where I am sure there will be plenty of people willing to explain to you that which you clearly do not understand.

kbarnes701 is online now  
post #186 of 873 Old 12-20-2012, 11:07 AM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

And this is all with the same speaker brand, calibrated to the same curve at the factory!!! So whatever dreams you have that these rooms all sounding the same is just that: a dream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Still think these rooms all sound the same and stick to some standard that makes them so?
...
BTW, a listening room was created for a famous director to mimic the sound of one of the rooms at Todd-AO so that he could hear the same thing at home.
Reference is an ideal condition to follow. The degree of high fidelity is judged on the closeness to that ideal condition. No one can ever make it exactly same as the original source with sound reproducing system however, with high fidelity systems, they have gotten close enough for our ears to be fooled. You intentionally or unknowingly distorted what reference is in this context. In either case, it's bad for audio community to be exposed to posts like yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

The graph to the left shows this and on the right is the same for theaters which supposed to match it:
i-T8JTZmn.png
By the way, you can measure from the same room and have different frequency response by moving the microphone just an inch or two.
amirm, the graph on the right shows the number 1987. Is that when it was measured?
diomania is offline  
post #187 of 873 Old 12-20-2012, 11:58 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,546
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 1243
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

You intentionally or unknowingly distorted what reference is in this context. In either case, it's bad for audio community to be exposed to posts like yours.

 

Agreed totally. This much opinion presented as 'fact', this much misinformation (and disinformation it seems too), this much distortion, this much selectivity in quoting ... all bad for the audio community.

 

OTOH, do you think there are people reading these threads who are actually taken in by these posts? Or do you think most people see them for what they are?

kbarnes701 is online now  
post #188 of 873 Old 12-20-2012, 01:03 PM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

do you think there are people reading these threads who are actually taken in by these posts? Or do you think most people see them for what they are?
At least couple forum members openly support him. Time will tell. If his retail store is still in business a few years from now, then the answer would be the former.
diomania is offline  
post #189 of 873 Old 12-20-2012, 01:37 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,546
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 1243
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

do you think there are people reading these threads who are actually taken in by these posts? Or do you think most people see them for what they are?
At least couple forum members openly support him. Time will tell. If his retail store is still in business a few years from now, then the answer would be the former.

 

The 'audiofool' stores stay in business mainly due to ignorance on the part of the customer and deliberate disingenuity on the part of the owner. Judging by the number of threads on AVS claiming 'night and day' differences between amps and/or DACs and the alleged virtues of $1,000 interconnects and air-dried maple speaker stands etc, I guess P T Barnum is this kind of store's Patron Saint.

kbarnes701 is online now  
post #190 of 873 Old 12-20-2012, 03:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
esh516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 607
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

The 'audiofool' stores stay in business mainly due to ignorance on the part of the customer and deliberate disingenuity on the part of the owner. Judging by the number of threads on AVS claiming 'night and day' differences between amps and/or DACs and the alleged virtues of $1,000 interconnects and air-dried maple speaker stands etc, I guess P T Barnum is this kind of store's Patron Saint.
Guess I'm a p.t. Barnum guy..my parasound halo amps and straight wire crescendo interconnects made a HUGE improvement in my system..compared to your basic avr and cheap I.cs..it would be a joke to even compare the two side by side
esh516 is offline  
post #191 of 873 Old 12-20-2012, 04:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DS-21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

As you probably know, you can remove the BBC dip (aka Mid range compensation in Audyssey-speak) if you have the Audyssey Pro Kit. FWIW, the overwhelming majority of those who have tried removing the dip and who have posted their findings in the Official Audyssey Thread or the Pro Kit Installer Thread prefer the result with the dip left in place. 

That's more likely than not due to incompetent loudspeaker design.

As Dr. Kyriakakis points out in his explanation, the dip is there because most speakers sold to consumers are crap. (He uses more words than that, but with the same effect. Good speakers don't have directivity shifts in the midrange, period.) They have no directivity control on the tweeter, so they spurt a mushroom cloud of midrange energy into the room at the top of the tweeter's passband.

Having compared MultEQ XT to ARC on competently-designed loudspeakers, the "crappy speakers compensation notch" is clearly deleterious to the sound quality of the Audyssey-equipped box. It should be defeatable without springing for Pro. (After all, it's defeatable on Alpine Audyssey box in my car - and there, like at home, it makes things worse with competent speaker choice and placement.) Until the notch is universally defeatable, I think music lovers should look to other room correction technologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Clearly Audyssey experimented a bit with this in their lab before dialing it in. The fact that they found it pleasing to their non-trained ears, is why we have a mistake like this in probably a million pieces of home electronics.

While I agree that the non-defeatable dip is a mistake and agree to a point about room gain (Audyssey seems also to agree, given the aggressive bass boosts in DynamicEQ), I take issue to your comment that Dr. Kyriakakis, Prof. Holman, etc. are "non-trained."

(Also, if you're referring to their test subjects, it's worth noting that the Harman research showed untrained listeners get to the same place as trained listeners, but just require more reps to get there.)

I think a better answer is to look at the loudspeakers, not the listeners. I recall seeing a picture of an Audyssey corporate demo room. The left and right mains were MTM's with 7" woofers and a flush-mounted dome tweeter. The center was a toppled MTM with the same drive-units. I suspect the crossover was in the 2kHz range. I don't know (or care) what brand they were or how much they cost, using speakers with a fundamentally incorrect basic design is going to lead to bad results.

Now, Audyssey folks may argue that ok, yeah, that topology of loudspeaker is guaranteed to provide a low-fidelity listening experience. But that's what most people use, so our market is in making those systems sound better." And that's fair enough.

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
Multichannel music (and video) urban loft living room system 
DS-21 is offline  
post #192 of 873 Old 12-21-2012, 09:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,546
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 1243
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

As you probably know, you can remove the BBC dip (aka Mid range compensation in Audyssey-speak) if you have the Audyssey Pro Kit. FWIW, the overwhelming majority of those who have tried removing the dip and who have posted their findings in the Official Audyssey Thread or the Pro Kit Installer Thread prefer the result with the dip left in place. 

That's more likely than not due to incompetent loudspeaker design.

As Dr. Kyriakakis points out in his explanation, the dip is there because most speakers sold to consumers are crap. (He uses more words than that, but with the same effect. Good speakers don't have directivity shifts in the midrange, period.) They have no directivity control on the tweeter, so they spurt a mushroom cloud of midrange energy into the room at the top of the tweeter's passband.

Having compared MultEQ XT to ARC on competently-designed loudspeakers, the "crappy speakers compensation notch" is clearly deleterious to the sound quality of the Audyssey-equipped box. It should be defeatable without springing for Pro. (After all, it's defeatable on Alpine Audyssey box in my car - and there, like at home, it makes things worse with competent speaker choice and placement.) Until the notch is universally defeatable, I think music lovers should look to other room correction technologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Clearly Audyssey experimented a bit with this in their lab before dialing it in. The fact that they found it pleasing to their non-trained ears, is why we have a mistake like this in probably a million pieces of home electronics.

While I agree that the non-defeatable dip is a mistake and agree to a point about room gain (Audyssey seems also to agree, given the aggressive bass boosts in DynamicEQ), I take issue to your comment that Dr. Kyriakakis, Prof. Holman, etc. are "non-trained."

(Also, if you're referring to their test subjects, it's worth noting that the Harman research showed untrained listeners get to the same place as trained listeners, but just require more reps to get there.)

I think a better answer is to look at the loudspeakers, not the listeners. I recall seeing a picture of an Audyssey corporate demo room. The left and right mains were MTM's with 7" woofers and a flush-mounted dome tweeter. The center was a toppled MTM with the same drive-units. I suspect the crossover was in the 2kHz range. I don't know (or care) what brand they were or how much they cost, using speakers with a fundamentally incorrect basic design is going to lead to bad results.

Now, Audyssey folks may argue that ok, yeah, that topology of loudspeaker is guaranteed to provide a low-fidelity listening experience. But that's what most people use, so our market is in making those systems sound better." And that's fair enough.

 

I take your points, but the anecdotal reports from many users in the Audyssey and Audyssey Pro threads suggest that the mid range comp is usually (not always) best left on. And this is from guys with very capable speakers. My own speakers are M&K S150s which I am sure you are familiar with, and they are certainly not deficient in any meaningful way, but when I have tried MRC on and off, I find I too prefer it left on. With it off, vocals assume a slight nasality that isn't there with it on. Of course, the room, the speaker placement, listening position etc may all have a bearing. The concensus seems to be "try it and see which you prefer".

kbarnes701 is online now  
post #193 of 873 Old 12-21-2012, 09:50 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,546
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 1243
Quote:
Originally Posted by esh516 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

The 'audiofool' stores stay in business mainly due to ignorance on the part of the customer and deliberate disingenuity on the part of the owner. Judging by the number of threads on AVS claiming 'night and day' differences between amps and/or DACs and the alleged virtues of $1,000 interconnects and air-dried maple speaker stands etc, I guess P T Barnum is this kind of store's Patron Saint.
Guess I'm a p.t. Barnum guy..my parasound halo amps and straight wire crescendo interconnects made a HUGE improvement in my system..compared to your basic avr and cheap I.cs..it would be a joke to even compare the two side by side

 

;)  Yeah - what do those ABX tests prove anyway!

kbarnes701 is online now  
post #194 of 873 Old 12-21-2012, 11:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 1,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by esh516 View Post

Guess I'm a p.t. Barnum guy..my parasound halo amps and straight wire crescendo interconnects made a HUGE improvement in my system..compared to your basic avr and cheap I.cs..it would be a joke to even compare the two side by side

Please keep the two things apart. That a new, probably more capable, amp makes a difference I'd be surprised if anyone questioned, but don't ascribe it to the cables!

Under construction: the Larch theater
Nightlord is offline  
post #195 of 873 Old 12-21-2012, 11:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 1,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I take your points, but the anecdotal reports from many users in the Audyssey and Audyssey Pro threads suggest that the mid range comp is usually (not always) best left on. And this is from guys with very capable speakers.

Capable and psychoacostically correct isn't necessarily the same. You can make a capable speaker that's too linear mic-wise. Which would benefit from the dip. But the dip will be in the off-axis response too, which isn't as good idea... So it's better that the speaker handles it.

Under construction: the Larch theater
Nightlord is offline  
post #196 of 873 Old 12-21-2012, 12:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 498 Post(s)
Liked: 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I take your points, but the anecdotal reports from many users in the Audyssey and Audyssey Pro threads suggest that the mid range comp is usually (not always) best left on. And this is from guys with very capable speakers. My own speakers are M&K S150s which I am sure you are familiar with, and they are certainly not deficient in any meaningful way, but when I have tried MRC on and off, I find I too prefer it left on. With it off, vocals assume a slight nasality that isn't there with it on. Of course, the room, the speaker placement, listening position etc may all have a bearing. The concensus seems to be "try it and see which you prefer".
Hmmm. So how does this work Keith? I have presented double blind published study that demonstrates the mid-range was further damaged on $8,000 pair of speakers. This is how it did in the mid-range:

image?pagenumber=18&w=800

By putting that dip, the adjacent frequencies now stick out like a sore thumb, garnering that kind of result. RC4 was the speaker alone. Clearly it did better without the help from Audyssey.

This resulted in this set of complaints:

image?pagenumber=20&w=800

This is how the six people voted:

i-HL937s9-XL.png

You see that deviation from mean (the bar around the dot) is almost non-existent showing that all listeners voted the same. indeed you see each person's vote on the right.

So no, the data does not say "try it and see which way you prefer." The data says that when tested blind, no one had a preference for it. They all uniformly derided what they heard.

From your vantage point, it seems that you want to throw all of that and instead go by anecdotal, sighted tests. Which you can. We are not here to force you to walk the plank of science smile.gif. Just don't tell us that is the consensus view. The consensus based on controlled and published testing is that this is a bad idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

wink.gif  Yeah - what do those ABX tests prove anyway!
Apparently nothing! frown.gif I don't know how you can cling to both sides of this argument in the same breath Keith. Either you believe in sighted bias or you don't. You make no mention of any blind tests backing your opinions in your FAQ and here, you keep referencing sighted results. Blind testing is not in your vocabulary when we are examining your views. It only surfaces when someone else's subjective results is being looked at.

I suspect like some you think you don't need blind testing for acoustics. You think because differences are audible, that bias takes a back seat. I can cite you research and listening tests that says that is wrong. But you will say you prefer to not read them. So here is a personal experience.

I was home testing a new AVR trying to see how good its auto EQ ("room correction") was. I ran through the setup and noticed that it made a nice improvement. Worried about sighted bias, I closed my eyes and pushed the remote button to turn the EQ on and off many times until I forgot what state it was in. Then I started to cycle on and off and paying attention to what I was hearing. I was relieved to detect all the improvements that I had heard sighted. I repeated this a few times and it was consistent. I left it in the "ON" state and opened my eyes. To my horror, I see that the display says EQ is off!!! frown.gif I did some more tested sighted and this time I realized the difference that I thought was there and pronounced, wasn't really.

I won't bore you with more stories of sitting in double blind tests of speakers and likewise being shocked at the outcome. So no, these are not tag lines we use to bludgeon audiophiles. We need to demonstrate that we live by them in real life and not just using them to plain argue.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #197 of 873 Old 12-21-2012, 12:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bfreedma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 9 iron from Philly
Posts: 1,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Please keep the two things apart. That a new, probably more capable, amp makes a difference I'd be surprised if anyone questioned, but don't ascribe it to the cables!

Actually, many (most) members here would question an amp making a difference. And for good, objectively supportable reasons.
bfreedma is offline  
post #198 of 873 Old 12-21-2012, 01:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 1,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

Actually, many (most) members here would question an amp making a difference. And for good, objectively supportable reasons.

Doesn't take much math to find out where the clipping limit on avrs go. Let's say I want to average 85dB and my piece of music has a 27dB crest factor ( as in for instance Hugh Masekela "Stimela" ) and we're using normal speakers around 87dB/w@1m and say we're sitting at 3m (9feet)+... Do tell me which AVR that won't clip... Which some added nice monoblocks or bridged stereo power amps might not. And then let's say I have a day when I like it loud and crank it up to a 90dB average? Now just how much power do you need to peak 117dB from an 87dB speaker? The answer is simple... You NEED external amps. Do the math. I'm quite surprised if most AVS members hasn't...

1w - 87
2w - 90
4w - 93
8w - 96
16w- 99
32w- 102
64w-105
128w- 108
256w- 111
512w- 114
~1kW - 117

Now, who's got an avr that can peak 1kW?

Under construction: the Larch theater
Nightlord is offline  
post #199 of 873 Old 12-21-2012, 01:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DS-21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

Actually, many (most) members here would question an amp making a difference. And for good, objectively supportable reasons.

Doesn't take much math to find out where the clipping limit on avrs go. Let's say I want to average 85dB and my piece of music has a 27dB crest factor ( as in for instance Hugh Masekela "Stimela" ) and we're using normal speakers around 87dB/w@1m and say we're sitting at 3m (9feet)+... Do tell me which AVR that won't clip... Which some added nice monoblocks or bridged stereo power amps might not. And then let's say I have a day when I like it loud and crank it up to a 90dB average? Now just how much power do you need to peak 117dB from an 87dB speaker? The answer is simple... You NEED external amps. Do the math. I'm quite surprised if most AVS members hasn't...

1w - 87
2w - 90
4w - 93
8w - 96
16w- 99
32w- 102
64w-105
128w- 108
256w- 111
512w- 114
~1kW - 117

Now, who's got an avr that can peak 1kW?

It doesn't matter. Few if any 87dB/W/m speakers can play 117dB regardless of input power anyway. Thermal compression is the issue, assuming they're stout enough to take the power in the first place.

If one wants that kind of broadband SPL, one needs to think in terms of compression drivers and possibly even horn-loaded mids along with lots and lots of volume displacement down low.

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
Multichannel music (and video) urban loft living room system 
DS-21 is offline  
post #200 of 873 Old 12-21-2012, 01:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bfreedma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 9 iron from Philly
Posts: 1,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Doesn't take much math to find out where the clipping limit on avrs go. Let's say I want to average 85dB and my piece of music has a 27dB crest factor ( as in for instance Hugh Masekela "Stimela" ) and we're using normal speakers around 87dB/w@1m and say we're sitting at 3m (9feet)+... Do tell me which AVR that won't clip... Which some added nice monoblocks or bridged stereo power amps might not. And then let's say I have a day when I like it loud and crank it up to a 90dB average? Now just how much power do you need to peak 117dB from an 87dB speaker? The answer is simple... You NEED external amps. Do the math. I'm quite surprised if most AVS members hasn't...
1w - 87
2w - 90
4w - 93
8w - 96
16w- 99
32w- 102
64w-105
128w- 108
256w- 111
512w- 114
~1kW - 117
Now, who's got an avr that can peak 1kW?

In the relatively rare case where someone has inefficient speakers in a big room and the AVR is clipping, of course a higher power amp capable of producing the SPL you want without clipping will sound different. That isn't the case in the post you responded to and it isn't representative of the vast majority of installations.

The suggestion that solid state amps sound different when run within spec was what I was referring to.
bfreedma is offline  
post #201 of 873 Old 12-21-2012, 02:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 1,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

It doesn't matter. Few if any 87dB/W/m speakers can play 117dB regardless of input power anyway. Thermal compression is the issue, assuming they're stout enough to take the power in the first place.
If one wants that kind of broadband SPL, one needs to think in terms of compression drivers and possibly even horn-loaded mids along with lots and lots of volume displacement down low.

Mine can. 121dB even and more in peak, and they are normal speakers. *shrug*

Under construction: the Larch theater
Nightlord is offline  
post #202 of 873 Old 12-21-2012, 02:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 1,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

In the relatively rare case where someone has inefficient speakers in a big room and the AVR is clipping, of course a higher power amp capable of producing the SPL you want without clipping will sound different. That isn't the case in the post you responded to and it isn't representative of the vast majority of installations.
The suggestion that solid state amps sound different when run within spec was what I was referring to.

My point is that most avrs will be running out of power quite often. A 100W poweramp in stereo use is far from enough and not very many avr pack as much power. You only need a little longer burst of bass output and the difference between 100 and 200W will be clearly noticable.

87dB is not inefficient, that's average or even a bit above average as many producers tend to show glory numbers. Nine feet isn't any exaggerated distance to listening position either, a lot of people will have much more.

But I do agree that if you stay within the operating window it won't be much/any difference. I'm just saying the window is smaller than you might think.

Under construction: the Larch theater
Nightlord is offline  
post #203 of 873 Old 12-21-2012, 03:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DS-21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

It doesn't matter. Few if any 87dB/W/m speakers can play 117dB regardless of input power anyway. Thermal compression is the issue, assuming they're stout enough to take the power in the first place.
If one wants that kind of broadband SPL, one needs to think in terms of compression drivers and possibly even horn-loaded mids along with lots and lots of volume displacement down low.

Mine can. 121dB even and more in peak, and they are normal speakers. *shrug*

You mean those little stepped things with 2 small woofers and a dome tweeter?

Not a chance in hell.

The manufacturer's propaganda may say they can, but it's not grounded in reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

My point is that most avrs will be running out of power quite often.

No. Especially with bass management. (Full range speakers...maybe.) It's just not an issue in most cases.

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
Multichannel music (and video) urban loft living room system 
DS-21 is offline  
post #204 of 873 Old 12-21-2012, 03:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bfreedma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 9 iron from Philly
Posts: 1,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

My point is that most avrs will be running out of power quite often. A 100W poweramp in stereo use is far from enough and not very many avr pack as much power. You only need a little longer burst of bass output and the difference between 100 and 200W will be clearly noticable.
87dB is not inefficient, that's average or even a bit above average as many producers tend to show glory numbers. Nine feet isn't any exaggerated distance to listening position either, a lot of people will have much more.
But I do agree that if you stay within the operating window it won't be much/any difference. I'm just saying the window is smaller than you might think.

I doubt many modern AVRs with bass management applied will be running out of power very often given that a subwoofer is going to be doing the heavy lifting. As you stated before, do the math.
bfreedma is offline  
post #205 of 873 Old 12-22-2012, 01:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 1,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

You mean those little stepped things with 2 small woofers and a dome tweeter?
Not a chance in hell..

They aren't woofers, they are boomers. It's not a full range speaker, it's just for above 80Hz.

Yes, it can. It's proven, and the bigger model with 4 boomers do a bit more before the tweeter sets the limit. Studio Blue in Stockholm which do education of people who want to be professional mixers and such use those for instance.

Under construction: the Larch theater
Nightlord is offline  
post #206 of 873 Old 12-22-2012, 01:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 1,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

I doubt many modern AVRs with bass management applied will be running out of power very often given that a subwoofer is going to be doing the heavy lifting. As you stated before, do the math.

Clipping from lack of power also happens in the top range. Clipped cymbals sound awful. But sure, using separate amplification for subwoofers will definitely lower the risk by quite much. In my book, there's still that Trentemöller track to considers, unless one uses the subs up to 120-150 somewhere.

Under construction: the Larch theater
Nightlord is offline  
post #207 of 873 Old 12-22-2012, 03:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,546
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 1243
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post


Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

wink.gif  Yeah - what do those ABX tests prove anyway!
Apparently nothing! frown.gif I don't know how you can cling to both sides of this argument in the same breath Keith. Either you believe in sighted bias or you don't. You make no mention of any blind tests backing your opinions in your FAQ and here, you keep referencing sighted results. Blind testing is not in your vocabulary when we are examining your views. It only surfaces when someone else's subjective results is being looked at.

I suspect like some you think you don't need blind testing for acoustics. You think because differences are audible, that bias takes a back seat. I can cite you research and listening tests that says that is wrong. But you will say you prefer to not read them. So here is a personal experience.

 

LOL!  I was being sarcastic! 

 

Amirm, with all respect, I am now adding you to my Ignore list, so please be aware of this if you reply to any of my posts to other people in future. I'm sorry, but I find your posts to be almost entirely without value. Nonetheless, I wish you well.

kbarnes701 is online now  
post #208 of 873 Old 12-22-2012, 08:07 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 498 Post(s)
Liked: 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Amirm, with all respect, I am now adding you to my Ignore list, so please be aware of this if you reply to any of my posts to other people in future. I'm sorry, but I find your posts to be almost entirely without value. Nonetheless, I wish you well.
It is understandable that the concepts that we have been discussing are very foreign to you. They are to many people here. It used to be for me too until I literally went back to school, unlearned everything I had read on forums, and learned the real deal. It is hard to do that in the context of forums given the heavy handed marketing of acoustic product companies and repetition of the myths in authoritative looking info like your FAQ. Folks just follow the crowd which is unfortunate as we can do serious damage to our listening rooms and to our pocketbook to say nothing of uglifying our living spaces as we fill them with insulation material. And ignore what makes for great sound in our rooms whether it is the loudspeakers or room equalization.

I know you still don't believe so let me have another top industry expert say this to you in the form of Dr. D'Antonio, the founder of RPG. He has a great set of slides outlining where have been, and where we are today with respect to our understanding of room acoustics. As a way of terminology, what you believe is encapsulated in concepts known as LEDE/Non-environmental rooms. Look at how dated those concepts are:

i-tXbpPn6-X2.png
We get our first true insight in the following era, realizing that psychoacostics plays a strong role here:
i-VW9GQxb-X2.png

We got on the disagreement path based your assumption that reflections need to be absorbed. Yet here is Dr. D'Antonion summarizing the fact that they are beneficial as one of the top realizations of this era:
i-BBRP9Hr-X2.png

This is putting it all together:
i-XFHWr3v-X2.png

As you see, the role of psychoacoustics and the work of Dr. Toole pop as some of our best thinking here. Yet I come here and you tell me all of that is "without value." You can't be more anti-science than that. Really can't.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #209 of 873 Old 12-22-2012, 08:12 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 498 Post(s)
Liked: 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

While I agree that the non-defeatable dip is a mistake and agree to a point about room gain (Audyssey seems also to agree, given the aggressive bass boosts in DynamicEQ), I take issue to your comment that Dr. Kyriakakis, Prof. Holman, etc. are "non-trained."

(Also, if you're referring to their test subjects, it's worth noting that the Harman research showed untrained listeners get to the same place as trained listeners, but just require more reps to get there.)
I think a better answer is to look at the loudspeakers, not the listeners. I recall seeing a picture of an Audyssey corporate demo room. The left and right mains were MTM's with 7" woofers and a flush-mounted dome tweeter. The center was a toppled MTM with the same drive-units. I suspect the crossover was in the 2kHz range. I don't know (or care) what brand they were or how much they cost, using speakers with a fundamentally incorrect basic design is going to lead to bad results.
Now, Audyssey folks may argue that ok, yeah, that topology of loudspeaker is guaranteed to provide a low-fidelity listening experience. But that's what most people use, so our market is in making those systems sound better." And that's fair enough.
I can be enticed to accept your theory as more valid to mine smile.gif.

BTW, the bit about trained listeners is probably the only area that I don't agree with Dr. Toole/Olive. I am a trained listener in the area of audio compression and I can hear artifacts that neither audiophiles nor general public can hear (with some rare exceptions). I think a better way to say what they are saying is that the preferences of expert listeners is never at odds with that of general public. It was never the case that I found an artifact that once fixed, made things worse for untrained people. I have discussed this with Dr. Toole and he feels that my view applies to non-linear distortions whereas theirs for linear distortions introduced by the room. He may be right but I am sticking to my guns. biggrin.gif

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #210 of 873 Old 12-23-2012, 04:34 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,854
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 408 Post(s)
Liked: 1052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightlord View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

In the relatively rare case where someone has inefficient speakers in a big room and the AVR is clipping, of course a higher power amp capable of producing the SPL you want without clipping will sound different. That isn't the case in the post you responded to and it isn't representative of the vast majority of installations.
The suggestion that solid state amps sound different when run within spec was what I was referring to.

My point is that most avrs will be running out of power quite often. A 100W poweramp in stereo use is far from enough and not very many avr pack as much power. You only need a little longer burst of bass output and the difference between 100 and 200W will be clearly noticable.

87dB is not inefficient, that's average or even a bit above average as many producers tend to show glory numbers. Nine feet isn't any exaggerated distance to listening position either, a lot of people will have much more.

But I do agree that if you stay within the operating window it won't be much/any difference. I'm just saying the window is smaller than you might think.

I've been expanding my view of speakers to include the effects of Xmax limited bass in common main speakers that many people are now using.

Real world speaker acoustic output is not a single number being dB SPL all by itself, not by any stretch of the imagination. Now that highly regarded and expensive speakers are being sold with so-called woofers as small as 5 inches, this is a serious problem.

For example, this is what the Xmax-limited bass looks like from a highly regarded ca. $1500 (each) allegedly full range speaker:

Freq,Hz Max SPL, DB

10 60
20 72
30 79
40 84
50 88
60 91
70 94
80 96
90 98
100 100
130 105

This is a highly optimistic view of this particular speaker's bass power bandwidth, based on a potentially inflated view of its actual capabilities.

If our goal is a mere 100 dB SPL with low bass distortion, this speaker must be crossed over at 100 hz or higher. Room effects, distance to the listener, etc, are likely to shrink these dB SPL numbers appreciably.

Even with an average estimate for its efficiency, it can only handle a few dozen watts or less in the bass range without distortion.

Clearly the weakest link in any system with this speaker is not your typical 100 wpc AVR.
arnyk is online now  
Reply Audio theory, Setup and Chat

User Tag List

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


Forum Jump: 

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

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