or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Audyssey MultEQ XT32 + SubEQ HT thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audyssey MultEQ XT32 + SubEQ HT thread - Page 2

post #31 of 89
yes, there is the "Bypass L/R" option but that still EQ's any speaker besides the L/R mains. He was looking for the ability to use the Sub EQHT function of the AVR independently from the MultEQ processing on the speaker channels.... but in the AVR version they are integrated, and cannot be run independently.

although, BTW, not to denegrate your suggestion, which may be a good enough compromise for him...
post #32 of 89
Yeah, bypassing L/R won't cut it for me, I've tried. I don't like what Audyssey does to my center speaker as well.
post #33 of 89
Well to each their own, hopefully the higher resolution of XT32 does the trick for you and you can ditch your Sub EQ.
post #34 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post
Really? How about XT64 next year or XT128 or whatever is next?
The law of diminishing returns reduces the improvement. 16 bit was a huge improvement over 8 bit. 32 was a large improvement over 16 bit. 64 bit is a small improvement over 32 bit. 128 bit will barely be noticable.

Same with this.
post #35 of 89
Has anyone compared XT32 with Trinnov?
post #36 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post
The law of diminishing returns reduces the improvement. 16 bit was a huge improvement over 8 bit. 32 was a large improvement over 16 bit. 64 bit is a small improvement over 32 bit. 128 bit will barely be noticable.

Same with this.
All of these output measurement curves you see are smoothed, usually 1/6 octave. If you saw them unsmoothed you might not say that.
post #37 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

All of these output measurement curves you see are smoothed, usually 1/6 octave. If you saw them unsmoothed you might not say that.

What division of octaves can humans hear or discern the differences if there are any?
post #38 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

What division of octaves can humans hear or discern the differences if there are any?

Try as I might I do not understand the question.
post #39 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

Try as I might I do not understand the question.

He is asking how sensitive the human ear actually is. Researching it a little, I found this:

Quote:


The ear tends to combine the sound within critical bandwidths, which are about 1/6 octave wide (historically thought to be 1/3 octave). This has led to the practice of averaging frequency response over 1/3 octave bands to produce beautiful-looking frequency response curves.

http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/EARS.htm

He does go on though:

Quote:


In my opinion this is misleading. Suppose a loudspeaker has a bad dropout (very weak response) over a narrow frequency range; the dropout will be totally obscured by averaging. But when a musical instrument plays a note that just happens to fall in the dropout notch, you will not be able to hear the note.

This only matters if the loudspeaker is poor. If you buy quality loudspeakers, then using 1/6 octave smoothing is perfectly acceptable, since the human ear combines sounds that are about 1/6 of an octave wide.

In other words, the ear is not sensitive enough to notice the difference in sounds within a specified 1/6 of an octave. Any system smoothing in that way is perfectly fine and not noticable by humans (who are the intended target audience).

post #40 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

Try as I might I do not understand the question.

Yeah it's hard to phrase what I'm asking becuase I don't fully grasp the concept.
I believe the amount of difference (or distortion) required for a human to hear a difference from the original signal is 3db which is why a lot of equipment is rated +/-3db, i.e. in the audible range.
Following that logic if a distortion on the frequency response occurs within a a 1/32 of an octave is it less likely to be audible than if it occurred through 1/6 of an octave? Or in simpler terms, where's the pratical point to smooth out a FR graph?
post #41 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

Yeah it's hard to phrase what I'm asking becuase I don't fully grasp the concept.
I believe the amount of difference (or distortion) required for a human to hear a difference from the original signal is 3db which is why a lot of equipment is rated +/-3db, i.e. in the audible range.
Following that logic if a distortion on the frequency response occurs within a a 1/32 of an octave is it less likely to be audible than if it occurred through 1/6 of an octave? Or in simpler terms, where's the pratical point to smooth out a FR graph?

1/6th of an octave is the proper point to smooth out a frequency response curve. Human hearing blends the sound together within the 1/6th octave band, making the individual sounds within that band all sound the same.
post #42 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

This only matters if the loudspeaker is poor. If you buy quality loudspeakers, then using 1/6 octave smoothing is perfectly acceptable, since the human ear combines sounds that are about 1/6 of an octave wide.

But your room could have issues over a narrower range of frequencies, irrespective of speaker quality.
post #43 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

1/6th of an octave is the proper point to smooth out a frequency response curve. Human hearing blends the sound together within the 1/6th octave band, making the individual sounds within that band all sound the same.

Thanks, that's what I was trying to decipher.
post #44 of 89
I have the 4311ci...

Ran audessy an everything checked out fine , saved value etc but I am not getting sound out of my subwoofer ?

Test tones recognized my sub but nothing is playing?

Can someone help.. Manual says if my front and center are set at large then my sub may not play. I tried setting my center and fronts to small and still no luck

Anyone?
post #45 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjfink View Post

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

I love Audessey, I think it's the most powerful room correction SW out there, and, in general, that room correction makes a HUGE difference to your audio experience. I'm willing to pay more to upgrade to the newer versions (as the become available) assuming that they make a difference that I can hear. At some point (maybe right now, maybe X1024, I don't know) there will be a trivial (non-noticeable) gain increasing the amount of filer resolution.

When that happens (and it will), I'll just have to be the fan-boy for something else; right now, IMHO, room correction is one of the most cost effective upgrades that you can make. At some point, we'll be a parity, and there will be other upgrades that supersede it's cost effectiveness...

Clearly you've never compared ARC to Audyssey. I have compared ARC in a MRX 500 against Audyssey in a Denon 4310 and there was no comparison and that was the comment from the Denon owner.
John
post #46 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayray View Post

Clearly you've never compared ARC to Audyssey. I have compared ARC in a MRX 500 against Audyssey in a Denon 4310 and there was no comparison and that was the comment from the Denon owner.

jayray, you are the biggest ARC cheerleader on AVS, so you are not exactly an unbiased third party.

AJ
post #47 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayray View Post

Clearly you've never compared ARC to Audyssey. I have compared ARC in a MRX 500 against Audyssey in a Denon 4310 and there was no comparison and that was the comment from the Denon owner.
John

That's not surprising but it's also not a fair comparison. Perhaps it might be if it was an Audyssey "Pro" calibration vs ARC, but even then ARC has a slight advantage. ARC is much more comparable to the results you'd get from Audyssey's stand alone EQ. The other thing that makes it unfair is that Anthem's room correction is a proprietary one, and not designed to be available through a wide range of products.

XT32 and SubEQ HT, (the topic of this thread BTW) will level the playing field and most likely will tip the scales in Audyssey's favor since it has even higher resolution than the SEQ has. Still, it will boil down to how the manufacturer implements it in their units, and if the Pro calibration is in play, but at least it'll be closer to an apples to apples comparison.
post #48 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

That's not surprising but it's also not a fair comparison. Perhaps it might be if it was an Audyssey "Pro" calibration vs ARC, but even then ARC has a slight advantage. ARC is much more comparable to the results you'd get from Audyssey's stand alone EQ. The other thing that makes it unfair is that Anthem's room correction is a proprietary one, and not designed to be available through a wide range of products.

XT32 and SubEQ HT, (the topic of this thread BTW) will level the playing field and most likely will tip the scales in Audyssey's favor since it has even higher resolution than the SEQ has. Still, it will boil down to how the manufacturer implements it in their units, and if the Pro calibration is in play, but at least it'll be closer to an apples to apples comparison.

I think it was more than fair. I compared Audyssey in a more expensive receiver to a less expensive one with ARC and it had much better sound with ARC. I didn't compare my D2v with full blown ARC, it was the reduced DSP one in the MRX 500. Why would I compare it to a full blown Audyssey which costs even more than the Denon version? Google ARC and tell me about one review that picks Audyssey over ARC. If you can't find any, go to the Anthem website and check out the reviews from well known and respected reviewers.
As for ARC being proprietary, how does this diminish it as a great room correction system. Anyone can buy one for less than many of the big name receivers and get a superior system.
John
post #49 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength View Post

jayray, you are the biggest ARC cheerleader on AVS, so you are not exactly an unbiased third party.

AJ

I don't cheer for ARC because I have it, I cheer for it because it is the best room correction system. I did my research before buying, it wasn't given to me, so if you google and check out reviews from magazines and sites such as Secrets of Home Theatre or go to Anthem's website and check out the reviews they have posted you might not think I'm the only one who thinks this way. If someone claims Audyssey is the best system and I don't agree, why shouldn't I chime in? At least I do comparisons rather than providing no evidence for my views, hardly what I would call cheerleading.

John
post #50 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayray View Post

I think it was more than fair. I compared Audyssey in a more expensive receiver to a less expensive one with ARC and it had much better sound with ARC. I didn't compare my D2v with full blown ARC, it was the reduced DSP one in the MRX 500. Why would I compare it to a full blown Audyssey which costs even more than the Denon version? Google ARC and tell me about one review that picks Audyssey over ARC. If you can't find any, go to the Anthem website and check out the reviews from well known and respected reviewers.
As for ARC being proprietary, how does this diminish it as a great room correction system. Anyone can buy one for less than many of the big name receivers and get a superior system.
John

My freind, you're way off base. The cost of the receiver is completely irrelevant, as is the DSP or it's quality. With ARC, all the heavy work is done on the computer (like Audyssey "Pro") and the DSP just has to have the filters etc available for it to use. If you're not comparing ARC to Audyssey "Pro" then the Denon does have to use it's DSP to do the calculations and is limited to the amount of measurements it can take and compute. Further the quality of supplied mics with on-board Audyssey implementations is not at the same level of those supplied in the Pro kit or ARC.

I didn't suggest that ARC being proprietary dimished its' quality, what I was implying is more along the lines of it being exclusive to the brand and therefore doesn't have to work with different manufacturers parameters.

I don't need to google anything, because what I'm talking about is common sense. ARC is a superior RC to on-board Audyssey MultEQXT for a variety of reasons, and that's why your's is not an apples to apples comparison.

An Audyssey Pro MultEQ XT calibration would be fairer, but do a Pro XT32 calibration vs ARC, and then we'd be talking apples to apples.
post #51 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayray View Post

I think it was more than fair. I compared Audyssey in a more expensive receiver to a less expensive one with ARC and it had much better sound with ARC. I didn't compare my D2v with full blown ARC, it was the reduced DSP one in the MRX 500. Why would I compare it to a full blown Audyssey which costs even more than the Denon version? Google ARC and tell me about one review that picks Audyssey over ARC. If you can't find any, go to the Anthem website and check out the reviews from well known and respected reviewers.

Citing personal or reviewer *preference* as evidence that one room *correction* system is superior to another is a bit paradoxical, is it not?

AJ
post #52 of 89
Additionally, Kal published measurements showing that the Audyssey in the SEQ exhibited time domain correction notably superior to that of ARC in the D2. (possibly because Audyssey uses FIR filters, while ARC uses IIR filters). That said, Kal noted minimal audible differences between Audyssey & ARC.

http://www.stereophile.com/musicinth...itr/index.html

AJ
post #53 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength View Post

Additionally, Kal published measurements showing that the Audyssey in the SEQ exhibited time domain correction notably superior to that of ARC in the D2. (possibly because Audyssey uses FIR filters, while ARC uses IIR filters). That said, Kal noted minimal audible differences between Audyssey & ARC.

http://www.stereophile.com/musicinth...itr/index.html

AJ

Yeah, that sort of speaks to my earlier point, XT32's resolution will be even higher than the SEQ. I think that could put the on-board implementation on a closer footing to ARC, if not superior given the extra attention to the bass with SubEQ HT in the mix.
post #54 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength View Post

Additionally, Kal published measurements showing that the Audyssey in the SEQ exhibited time domain correction notably superior to that of ARC in the D2. (possibly because Audyssey uses FIR filters, while ARC uses IIR filters). That said, Kal noted minimal audible differences between Audyssey & ARC.

http://www.stereophile.com/musicinth...itr/index.html

AJ

Kal also said ARC was better for movies and Audyssey for music which makes no sense since it is correcting what comes out of the speakers regardless of the source. Music in movies hardly sounds worse. IIR filters are quite effective but not everyone knows how to implement them, Anthem does. The reviews on Anthems website are links to articles written by independent reviewers. Anthem really isn't large enough to be "buying" good reviews. Just check out the Anthem threads where people have gone from other brands and see what they say.
I would suggest doing your own comparison, not relying on others.
I believe it was a good comparison regardless of where the calculations are done. Perhaps this then is just another limitation of Audyssey.
post #55 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightbox View Post

But your room could have issues over a narrower range of frequencies, irrespective of speaker quality.

It could. To make things affordable, the line must be drawn somewhere. The 1/6th octave choice is the best place to do it.

I cannot be positive, but I think there are professional systems which dig deeper - but cost significantly more.
post #56 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayray View Post

I believe it was a good comparison regardless of where the calculations are done..

C'mon quit smoking the Anthem crack pipe and read what's being written here.

No one is dissing ARC, just the fact that you compared it to something that everyone knows (well, except you) isn't in the same league. Kal's comparison is far more valid, and certainly more valid than anecdotal evidence on a forum for a specific manufacturers product.
post #57 of 89
Oh, and since movies make far more use of surround channels than even multi-channel music it doesn't seem a stretch to me that Audyssey's work in the time domain might lead to more appreciable results with that material.
post #58 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post


C'mon quit smoking the Anthem crack pipe and read what's being written here.

No one is dissing ARC, just the fact that you compared it to something that everyone knows (well, except you) isn't in the same league. Kal's comparison is far more valid, and certainly more valid than anecdotal evidence on a forum for a specific manufacturers product.

Go ahead believe what you want and making offensive comments doesn't make you right. Why don't you read something other than Kal's review or don't they let you on the Audyssey thread. My comparison was every bit as good but I must have gotten the wrong answer
John
post #59 of 89
Well there was a wink thrown in there implying that it was being said tounge in cheek. If you want to take it as offensive that's your perogative, I can't do anything about that.

You are coming accross as "the emporer with no clothes" on this one though. I strongly suggest you read what's being written, and actually try to understand what's being said rather than defend an undefendable position for whatever reason you're choosing to do so.
post #60 of 89
Why does every boutique brand owner think what they own trumps everything else?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Audyssey MultEQ XT32 + SubEQ HT thread