AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
8M views 80K replies 3K participants last post by  Mike Lang 
#1 ·

I've been in several threads lately where the topic has been all about Audyssey and I've noted that there's not actually a thread specifically for it. There's one that seems to be about it, but it's titled as being about the Denon 3806. Audyssey, of course, exists in far more receivers than the 3806 nowadays, so I thought I'd throw a starter into the pool to see if people were interested in having one thread to discuss all Audyssey issues/comments/questions/stories/impressions that they've come up with from their personal receiver-experiences.


Myself, i was quite anti-Audyssey when I first came across it. My ears were quite used to what they'd had before which was very bass & treble heavy. Time has passed and I've really come to understand the strengths of Audyssey and respect the clean, flat signal that I now love and enjoy (and couldn't imagine being without). I'd love to hear from anyone else that wants to chime in or discuss issues.


Basic starter-links:


The Audyssey homepage .


The types of Audyssey implimentations in different receivers.



The Audyssey FAQ


The Audyssey setup guide


====

Audyssey tips:

Microphone Placement


The microphone has been calibrated for grazing incidence and so it must point to the ceiling during calibration. Any other orientation will produce incorrect results.


The microphone response has been calibrated to match (on average) the response of an industry-standard ¼ instrumentation microphone. It is critical to use the microphone that came with the receiver and not one from another model that may have a different calibration curve.


It is also important to place the microphone on a tripod or other stand so that it is at ear height. We strongly recommend against holding the microphone in your hand because this can give rise to low frequency handling noise that will cause the MultEQ filters to compensate by cutting those frequencies. Furthermore, it is not recommended to place the microphone on the back of the couch or recliner. If a tripod is used, care must be taken to ensure that the microphone is placed at a height just above the seat back so that reflections from the seat do not cause problems at higher frequencies.


The first microphone position is used to calculate the distances to each loudspeaker and subwoofer and set the delays. It is also used to measure and set the trims. So, it is important to place the microphone in the main listening seat for the first measurement.


MultEQ measures the background noise level in the room before playing the test signal from each speaker. For the measurements to be valid, the signal to noise ratio must be above a certain threshold. If it is not, the test signal from that speaker will repeat at a higher level. If the noise in the room happens to be higher during some of the speaker measurements, then the test signals from those speakers will sound louder than the test signals from the other speakers. This does not affect the calculation of trim levels. If the room noise is too high even after the test signals increase in level, then an error message will be displayed warning the user that measurements can not be completed.


After the first position is measured, MultEQ measures other positions in the room around the listening area. These do not necessarily have to be in each individual seat. The idea is to capture as many points around the listening area as possible so that the acoustical problems that affect the quality of sound within that area are minimized.


For example, we recommend taking 3 positions on the couch facing the TV and then 3 more positions about 3 feet in front of the couch and parallel to the first three. Measurements up against the back or side walls should be avoided.


Some loudspeakers have rather problematic responses when measured off-axis (i.e. more than 15° away from the imaginary straight line that points to the listening position). In these systems, measurements taken too far away from the center line will show a reduced high-frequency response that may result in overcorrection and thus overly bright sound. Although it is difficult to predict which type of loudspeaker will have these off-axis problems we have most often observed them in poorly-designed multiple-driver arrays that exhibit very high off-axis lobing. In these situations we recommend a tighter calibration pattern centered around the main listening position and making sure that the mic is not placed in extreme locations and certainly not outside the plane of the front main speakers.

Checking the Results


Once MultEQ calibration is complete the results are stored in the receiver memory.


It is important to activate MultEQ by selecting one of the target curves. This is not performed by default after the calibration is finished and must be selected by the user. In a THX system we recommend using the Flat setting that allows the re-equalization to work as intended. In other systems, we recommend Audyssey for movie playback and Flat for music playback. Unfortunately, the music industry does not have any mixing standards like the movie industry so some music program material may sound better with the Audyssey setting. Front Align also uses the Audyssey process, but it does not apply the filters to the two front loudspeakers. Manual is not an Audyssey setting and does not use MultEQ filters. It is a simple parametric equalizer and will be subject to all the limitations that come with parametric EQ.


Small vs. Large speakers. This is the most commonly discussed topic by MultEQ users. The first thing to understand is that it is not a personal insult to your system if your speakers were detected as Small. It simply means, that in the room they were measured the - 3 dB point was detected at 80 Hz or above. This may happen even if the manufacturer's spec shows that the speaker is capable of playing lower. In fact, there are several benefits at crossing the speakers over at 80 Hz that have to do with power handling and headroom in the bass region that will be handled by the subwoofer amplifier.


The second most common question also relates to Small vs. Large. In the Denon receivers, MultEQ will designate as Large any speaker that has a -3 dB point below 80 Hz. For non-THX speaker systems this is an arbitrary definition that often causes confusion. All it means is that the speaker will not be bass managed unless the user tells it to be. Because Audyssey is not in charge of bass management, we have to abide by the manufacturers' rules and simply report the information found by the measurements to the bass management system.


In situations where the speakers do not play significantly below 80 Hz, an additional step must be taken to make sure that there is no loss of bass information. The user must set the speaker to Small manually so that bass management is performed properly.


Polarity: MultEQ checks the absolute polarity of each loudspeaker and reports it to the user. This is simply a report and does not affect the subsequent calculations in any way. It just asks you to check the wiring to make sure it is connected properly to each speaker. Sometimes we get false alarms. This is usually because the speaker has a driver (usually the mid-range driver) wired out-of-phase intentionally to make up for some problems at the crossover region. If a phase warning is shown, it is not a cause of alarm. Simply check the cables and hit Skip if everything is fine. Again, this does not have any effect on the EQ results.


Subwoofer distance: in many active subwoofers it is not possible to defeat the low-pass filtering. That means that the pre-pro bass management filters will be on top of the low-pass filters inside the subwoofer. The built-in low-filters introduce a delay to the signal coming in (because they have poles). This delay is seen by MultEQ as acoustical delay and is reported in the results. That is why sometimes the subwoofer distance is reported to be longer than the physical measured distance. The setting should not be changed because the blend between the sub and the satellites has been designed based on this time delay.


The design constraints for MultEQ were that it (1) must fit within a small portion of the DSP so that other processes can also run and (2) it must use FIR filters because of the well-known artifacts that IIR filters cause particularly in the time domain response. As it turns out, these two requirements are contradicting. In order for FIR filters to be effective and capable of correcting to low frequencies, they must consist of several thousand coefficients (taps). The problem is that the CPU power required increases with the number of taps, hence the dilemma. What we did at Audyssey was to come up with a different way to partition the frequency axis so that we can use fewer taps and yet not completely give up on low frequency resolution (and therefore low frequency correction). This allows us to take a 512 tap filter that would normally have a resolution of 94 Hz (meaning that any peak or dip narrower than 94 Hz would be missed) and significantly improve its resolving power. The resolution of the filter actually varies continuously with frequency and starts at around 10 Hz. Does this mean that MultEQ can correct an arbitrarily narrow peak or dip at 30 Hz? Of course not. The reality is that in the MultEQ XT version found in receivers, we can correct broader features below 100 Hz better than narrow ones. For example, a lump that is half an octave wide at 50 Hz can be fixed. A narrow dip or peak that is 1/3 or 1/6 octaves wide and centered at 30 Hz will be improved, but not eliminated.


The on-screen display in the receiver has very limited graphics. Therefore it is not possible to really show what the MultEQ correction filter is doing at all frequencies. It appears to only be operating on 9 bands like a parametric equalizer, but this is not the case. What is shown is a very crude approximation to the MultEQ correction and it should not be used to read exact values of cut or boost at the 9 frequencies shown.


Furthermore, there is no display for the subwoofer filter. This doesn't mean that there is no subwoofer correction. It was not added to the display because of interface and memory considerations.


(tips by Chris, CTO, Audyssey Laboratories)
 
See less See more
#261 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will_Morr /forum/post/12066471


It's "set and forget" or push the bypass button. Hopefully, someday, Audyssey will release user software to let us play with the preset curves in the unit.

If I don't buy one, that's going to be the reason: lack of user control. Audyssey seems to have a 'holier than thou' attitude, and think all users are stupid.
 
#262 ·
Thanks again for all the feedback guys! Very Much appreciated!!
 
#263 ·
I also have the sound pro eq and it makes a HUGE difference. Highly recommended & I couldn't go without it now that I have had it for about 2 months now.


I have the installers kit so I have had the chance to re-calibrate it many times and try different things like speaker placement to get the flattest response. By doing so, I have had great results.


I use the Eq for TV, movies, radio.....it all makes a huge improvement to the sound quality. I have always read that room acoustics are very important but I never knew it made this much difference.


I had the denon avr 3806 with audyssey on it but the stand alone unit is a lot better. On my denon I never really liked the audyssey setting and preferred it on front or off at times.
 
#264 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by syswei /forum/post/12066915


If I don't buy one, that's going to be the reason: lack of user control. Audyssey seems to have a 'holier than thou' attitude, and think all users are stupid.

It seems that way but Audyssey is a small company and does not have the resources to support end-users directly via telephone or email. Also, if they are to succeed with a product such as the Sound EQ Pro, they need sales well beyond the handful of us tweakers that can afford such a product. They need local HT shop salesmen that will well the product to their non-tech-savvy clients in part because they can make an extra buck on the installation.


But, I wouldn't rule out something like Audyssey increasing the price of the installer's kit to cover the support that would be necssary for users that have not been trained. Maybe one price for professional installers (a discount) and another for end-users that may need support. You might give them a call if you are really interested in having an installer's kit. Maybe you could even become "the" installer for your area if there isn't a local HT shop already selling and supporting the Sound EQ Pro. I'm just thinking out loud here.


HClarkx
 
#265 ·
"But, I wouldn't rule out something like Audyssey increasing the price of the installer's kit to cover the support that would be necssary for users that have not been trained."


I emailed Audyssey and they said taking the training is a requirement to buy the installer's kit.
 
#266 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz /forum/post/12139470


I emailed Audyssey and they said taking the training is a requirement to buy the installer's kit.

Not a surprise I guess. With a staff of just 20 and no help desk in India ..... But, if they get enough expressions of interest ... maybe someday ..
 
#267 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz /forum/post/12139470


"But, I wouldn't rule out something like Audyssey increasing the price of the installer's kit to cover the support that would be necssary for users that have not been trained."


I emailed Audyssey and they said taking the training is a requirement to buy the installer's kit.

Its very easy to install and imo one doesn't need training to install it. The manual is very well written and the software is easy to follow.


I understand that the training ensures the best PRO installation and hence the best sound! The product's reputation & results are what creates sales and if its not 100% properly calibrated then one will not think so highly of the product....then no recommendations & word of mouth to buy it....etc


I highly recommend the pro sound eq.....worth every penny and worth its weight in gold


When I turn off the eq processing I can't bare listening to my system as there is a significant difference.
 
#268 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by wabbit636 /forum/post/12143297


I highly recommend the pro sound eq.....worth every penny and worth its weight in gold


When I turn off the eq processing I can't bare listening to my system as there is a significant difference.

I have the same results. My speakers "tested very well in the lab" according to the Audyssey folks and my room has no terrible problems in the "before" tests, but still there is significant improvement. In particular, I like the clarity in voices coming from the center channel. My 66 year-old ears don't extract voices from background noise (in a crowded room or a movie soundtrack) as well as 10 or 20 years ago. The extra clarity helps with this problem (everyone has this problem sooner or later). I now ask my wife "what did she say?" far less often.


And, I can listen to what otherwise is fairly intense music (to me) for long periods without picking up the remote to move to another CD. I also enjoy listening at higher volume levels now.


Hclarkx
 
#269 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by syswei /forum/post/12066915


If I don't buy one, that's going to be the reason: lack of user control. Audyssey seems to have a 'holier than thou' attitude, and think all users are stupid.

I have to agree that the lack of Audyssey control on the Integra DTC-9.8 is disappointing and will influence future product purchase decisions. They would be better off giving the end user more control and letting their product become and remain the standard. It doesn't have to be at the pro install level but meet us half way on saved settings and adjustment options. This would have no impact on the Pro install/calibration market that would still exist. "Tweakers" want control over their sound, not marketing.
 
#270 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by rweeb /forum/post/12151400


I have to agree that the lack of Audyssey control on the Integra DTC-9.8 is disappointing and will influence future product purchase decisions. They would be better off giving the end user more control and letting their product become and remain the standard. It doesn't have to be at the pro install level but meet us half way on saved settings and adjustment options. This would have no impact on the Pro install/calibration market that would still exist. "Tweakers" want control over their sound, not marketing.

Well it is what it is. No Audyssey product has "control" it's not a 9.8 specific issue. And really, it's no secret that the Audyssey is designed as a set it & forget it program, so what's all the fuss about? You either like what it does or you don't. On or off, that's a choice.. The 9.8 has a 15 band EQ for each speaker available IIRC, so there are other tweaks available to the user besides the Audyssey.

What did people do before room correction software became mainstream?
 
#271 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by wabbit636 /forum/post/12143297


Its very easy to install and imo one doesn't need training to install it. The manual is very well written and the software is easy to follow.


I understand that the training ensures the best PRO installation and hence the best sound! The product's reputation & results are what creates sales and if its not 100% properly calibrated then one will not think so highly of the product....then no recommendations & word of mouth to buy it....etc


I highly recommend the pro sound eq.....worth every penny and worth its weight in gold


When I turn off the eq processing I can't bare listening to my system as there is a significant difference.


I agree completely - the "Pro" eq is exceptional. I sold my SEQ because the 9.8 will have it on board and I hope that the 9.8 has similar filters available for the program to set as the SEQ or I might be looking to get another one.



Personally I really like what it does for the bottom end - the bass resolution is incredible and having four curves to choose from, plus the option of midrange compensation, gives you some choices for the top end based on your tastes. I read that one AVSer, preferred flat in his room I preferred the Audyssey's roll-off with no midrange compensation - two rooms, two tastes, two happy campers.
 
#272 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by rweeb /forum/post/12151400


I have to agree that the lack of Audyssey control on the Integra DTC-9.8 is disappointing and will influence future product purchase decisions. They would be better off giving the end user more control and letting their product become and remain the standard. It doesn't have to be at the pro install level but meet us half way on saved settings and adjustment options. This would have no impact on the Pro install/calibration market that would still exist. "Tweakers" want control over their sound, not marketing.

There is, in fact, no greater user control with the Pro setup; it merely lets the user choose one of 4 target curves and/or a midrange compensation. There are no storage or saving or adjustment options beyond what you get in the Integra or the Denon consumer setups. Tweaking is verboten.
 
#274 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by rweeb /forum/post/12153702


Audyssey does a nice job. It could be much better with little effort on their part, it's like having air conditioning but with no control over the temperature.

IMHO, it's possible that allowing user changes like folks here seem to want isn't easy to do. I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that it may not be practical. Stay with me here for a moment. Audyssey's goal is to make every seating position in an HT sound the same, right? To do this, they use calculations that operate on data gathered during the setup routine. Fuzzy logic is applied to group the measurements according to certain parameters, then filters are calculated to produce the different built-in curves. Yada, yada, yada. Now, changing those curves on the fly could be a lot more daunting than we assume them to be in terms of both the math and the hardware involved. For instance, it might require entirely different fuzzy logic or calculations for the filters depending on what frequencies were boosted or cut, because of changes in phase, etc. Audyssey has done the math to find the fuzzy logic routines and filter equations that produce their specific curves, and packaged them in a form that can be built into DSPs. On-the-fly changes to these might require far more computing power than is currently practical or affordable in mass-market CE gear.


I think the key here is the math needed to maintain equal sonic goodness for all the seats in your HT. Anything else isn't Audyssey. In that case, one might as well just use a parametric EQ.


Again, this was just my opinion. YMMV!
 
#275 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolls-Royce /forum/post/12154615


IMHO, it's possible that allowing user changes like folks here seem to want isn't easy to do. I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that it may not be practical. Stay with me here for a moment. Audyssey's goal is to make every seating position in an HT sound the same, right? To do this, they use calculations that operate on data gathered during the setup routine. Fuzzy logic is applied to group the measurements according to certain parameters, then filters are calculated to produce the different built-in curves. Yada, yada, yada. Now, changing those curves on the fly could be a lot more daunting than we assume them to be in terms of both the math and the hardware involved. For instance, it might require entirely different fuzzy logic or calculations for the filters depending on what frequencies were boosted or cut, because of changes in phase, etc. Audyssey has done the math to find the fuzzy logic routines and filter equations that produce their specific curves, and packaged them in a form that can be built into DSPs. On-the-fly changes to these might require far more computing power than is currently practical or affordable in mass-market CE gear.


I think the key here is the math needed to maintain equal sonic goodness for all the seats in your HT. Anything else isn't Audyssey. In that case, one might as well just use a parametric EQ.


Again, this was just my opinion. YMMV!

I do not disagree but let me suggest two modifications that would make the product much more attractive to me and, perhaps, others.


1. Allow the user to set a target curve. Currently, Audyssey Pro supports 4 pre-determined target curves. The measurement results are applied to these curves and the resulting filters can be loaded, compared to bypass and, if they satisfy, stored. Adding/substituting a user-defined curve (or letting the user select one from a larger assortment of curves) would still leave the basic Audyssey operations intact.


2. Allow the PC (which runs Audyssey Pro) to store two or more EQ results. I can get variable results from Audyssey Pro but, when I achieve a good one, I am deterred from attempting to improve on it lest the next result be inferior. If so, I cannot recover the previous usable one. This does not flaut Audyssey philosophy or secrecy but would allow the user to optimize its use. (N.B.: The promised Wisdom Audio controller utilizes Audyssey Pro and has multiple memories.)


3. Allow the operating device (AVR, pre/pro, SEQ) to store more than one set of EQ results. This would allow the user to have different EQ settings for, say, alternative seating arrangements and/or alternative speaker arrangements. It would also implement the function discussed above in (2).
 
#276 ·
The instructions I've seen point out that the microphone should be pointed up to take a "grazing" reading, as opposed to pointing at any speaker. I understand the purpose there, however I have a less than ideal room situation that results in my sitting areas being up against the back walls, and therefore my rear surrounds are ceiling mounted above the seat positions and facing mostly down. Therefore, having the mic face up will allow for a grazed reading of all speakers except the rears. I'm thinking that the best option would be to angle the mike forwards in a compromise position that would have it pointed to the ceiling towards the front of the room, such that the angle from each speaker and the mic was as equal to all speakers as possible.


Thoughts?
 
#277 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darin /forum/post/12154895


The instructions I've seen point out that the microphone should be pointed up to take a "grazing" reading, as opposed to pointing at any speaker. I understand the purpose there, however I have a less than ideal room situation that results in my sitting areas being up against the back walls, and therefore my rear surrounds are ceiling mounted above the seat positions and facing mostly down. Therefore, having the mic face up will allow for a grazed reading of all speakers except the rears. I'm thinking that the best option would be to angle the mike forwards in a compromise position that would have it pointed to the ceiling towards the front of the room, such that the angle from each speaker and the mic was as equal to all speakers as possible.


Thoughts?

Darin,


The microphone surely does have a different sensitivity depending on the direction of the sound wave hitting it, or Audyssey would not be so adamant about the orientation. Audyssey has optimized the use of the mic, taking its characteristics into account in the filter calculation software so your question is well founded.


Because the back wall is a significant issue and greatly affects your mains and center, and those are the most critical channels, I would suggest using the recommended vertical mic orientation. Surrounds are generally recommended to be mounted three feet above ear level and so will often have the direct wave hit the mic from somewhat above the horizontal (just not at the near 90 degree angle you have). Additionally, the sound from the surrounds is supposed to be diffuse and if there is some less than optimum calibration that occurs from the surround test tones hitting the mic at a high an angle, it will probably have little impact on sound quality.


In a nut shell, while your rear surrounds are not ideally placed, I wouldn't let them influence the optimization process for the other channels.


You might try orienting the rears differently, maybe kicked in at 45 degrees so they partly face each other (sound still going down the back wall, but not directly downward).


You might experiment with mic orientation. But, if you see it affecting any of the settings or "before" room anomalies for the mains and center, or it affects the sound from the mains and center in any way, I would go back to the vertical orientation.


HClarkx
 
#278 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson /forum/post/12154735


2. Allow the PC (which runs Audyssey Pro) to store two or more EQ results. I can get variable results from Audyssey Pro but, when I achieve a good one, I am deterred from attempting to improve on it lest the next result be inferior. If so, I cannot recover the previous usable one. This does not flaut Audyssey philosophy or secrecy but would allow the user to optimize its use. (N.B.: The promised Wisdom Audio controller utilizes Audyssey Pro and has multiple memories.)

Kal, does the Pro software store one set of measurements to disk, i.e. can you restart the program and the measurements are still available? If so, you should be able to manually copy the files to another folder and restore them if necessary.
 
#279 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by catapult /forum/post/12161927


Kal, does the Pro software store one set of measurements to disk, i.e. can you restart the program and the measurements are still available? If so, you should be able to manually copy the files to another folder and restore them if necessary.

Nope. The only thing it stores is an encrypted version of the results suitable only for upload to Audyssey for their own purposes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top