The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 6

cool - just curious

No problem . As far as I can tell I have little to no room gain down there, which is a bit of a bummer. No free lunch for me....

Was 80 the first choice?

I don't recall. I've done six different calibrations just playing around and now have the system sounding great!

My front L & R speakers have built-in powered subs. I turned down the gain and level matched them (somewhat, but not perfectly) and this verified the discrepancy I was seeing between the two speakers.

I also noted my final Audyssey certificate shows the sub level somewhat below the reference line.

I played with my Velodyne DD-15 built-in equalizer prior to my last few calibrations. The Velodyne graph isn't flat but only varies from 83-76db from 20-100Hz. That is consistent for all three listening positions on my front row of seats.

However, Audyssey Pro seems to hear a significant spike on the low end and appears to trim down the sub to 4-5db below reference to compensate. At least that is how I interpret the graphs.

Attachment 218291

EDIT: BTW, the Audyssey Certifcate I've attached here doesn't seem to display the "reference" line on some of the graphs (e.g. subwoofer graph) that clearly show up when I view the same certificate on the Audyssey web site. Don't know why, I printed the .pdf using CutePDF and perhaps that alters the certificate somewhat when doing the print conversion.

 

Audyssey Customer Certificate.pdf 163.671875k . file

My certificates show the same 4-5 dB drop from the reference line. However, when I measure the FR independent of Audyssey, the subs are properly leveled.

Thanks for that info...good to know!

This is actually a good question. In my calibration, the suggested crossovers are in the order 40, 60, and 80 Hz. I like to route everything below 80 Hz to the subs, so that's what I choose. However, Audyssey documentation has never been clear exactly how the order is determined, or what the consequences of selecting a crossover further down the order might be.

I have seen Audyssey comment that the list is ranked with first being most prefered, last least. But Audyssey is myopic in that it is not considering other factors that might make a higher crossover a better choice, such as the need to unload an amp to increase headroom at higher volumes or whether your flavor of Audyssey has higher resolution filters for the sub compared to the satellites.

No, a/b'ing is not easy, subjective, and highly dependent on the experience of the listener. Taking independent measurements can objectively reveal whether the FR curve improves along the crossover point.

For the folks that aren't familiar with how Audyssey Pro works...

Audyssey Pro optimizes the XO region based upon the XOs you select in the software (MultEQ Pro). This makes it even harder to A/B changing the XOs because you have to connect your laptop to your receiver, re-load the measurements (if you were smart enough to save them off in the first place ), select the different XOs, then have Audyssey re-optimize the filters using the new XOs.

Audyssey (Chris K.) discourages changing XOs in the receiver after calibrating it with Audyssey Pro.

Here is an example of how well Audyssey Pro optimizes the XO region. I chose 80Hz vs the top recommended choices (they were large, 40, 60, then 80).

Blue - Audyssey off, Red - Audyssey on

A couple years ago there was a thread about a subjective and objective evaluation of room correction products. The main thrust was that subjective preference is for a smooth sloping response from elevated bass to a rolled off high. Audyssey does the latter, modulo the mid-range dip, . Has anyone tried this with the pro kit, possibly with some external help?

This does make me think about the not uncommon observation that Audyssey needs a bit of LF boost.

You can add a house curve but it's limited to +/-3db in the target curve editor. I added one to my Pro calibration but I can't say it made a big difference.

I use a curve that is +1dB at 150Hz, locked at Reference at 250Hz, and applied to mains only, i.e. not sub channel. It is also +1dB at 20k, locked to Reference at 12k and 22k.

With my 885 I had all sorts of tweaks to mids and highs, and still wasn't happy. With the exception of the two I just mentioned, all of those others went away when the 5508 arrived.

Jeff

I wouldn't say that, as Audyssey only rolls off starting in the treble, and flat below that.

When I said the latter I meant: "to a rolled off high" as opposed to the former: "from elevated bass".

One might expect that. The winning slope was 10dB.


One might also expect that if the resulting in-room response at MLP matches the calculated FR.

Hello.

If anyone is selling their AUDESSY sound equalizer BLACK faceplate version,(unbalanced - RCA version) please PM me, I am very interested.

thanks

Audyssey's target curve, except for the midrange dip, is based on and adapted from the SMPTE-X Curve. If you google the X-curve, you will see that it is based on research and subjective evaluations of farfield sound in theaters, going back decades. It is solid, accepted science. The amount of rolloff is dependent primarily on room volume, and Pro gives us three choices based on room size.

I am personally sold on the concept of a measured HF rolloff to give the subjective perception of flat response in farfield listening. My own subjective basis for this is the sound of the Philadelphia Orchestra Ondine SACD's vs. the live sound equivalent. I was in the audience when several of these recordings were made. Of course, I was not sitting where the mikes are, but then again, mikes do not hear like people do.

In general, I believe most hi fi speakers in most rooms, even the best and costliest speakers, deliver too much HF energy. The rolloff corrects for this in a way that I subjectively have come to feel is more like a live concert. And, I also believe that if it sounds right with music, where I have a live reference, it's going to sound right with movies. The great Gordon Holt of Stereophile also concluded many decades ago that a gentle rolloff starting in the next to top octave, which is what Audyssey does, provided sound that was subjectively closest to live sound using his own master tapes.

I also believe that bass response should be measurably flat. That is what sounds best (vs. live) to my ears by far.

On the other hand, I have never seen a reasonable explanation from Audyssey that convinces me that the 2K midrange dip is in any way preferable or even sensible with good equipment. My own listening to it off and on convinces me completely that it does not hold water. So, I eliminate it.

In general, applying Audyssey, particularly Pro has been a sonic revelation that, coupled with discrete Mch recording, has pushed my sound beyond absolutely anything I dreamed possible after many decades as an audiophile and frequent concert attendee. Other concert going friends are in complete agreement vs. the sound of live music. Absolutely no stereo at any price without DSP EQ, and I have heard quite a few at insanely high prices, comes remotely close.

Not really
http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/z...%20Journal.pdf
http://www.hps4000.com/pages/general...al_x_curve.pdf

I realized that I had been trying to improve detail and transparency .. things that cannot be EQ'd into gear that does not have it. Otherwise, we could make an HTIB sound like Classe.

I agree with Fitz on the mid-range compensation. It must be speaker dependent but both my Von Schweikerts and Emerald Physics speaker prefer turning mid-comp off. The difference is a pronounced recess of vocals with mid-comp on, with it off the vocals are back to were they should be. These were all just 2 channel tests though and with movies the difference was not as big.

I enjoy my 5508 with Audyssey Pro but I have a hard time saying it is better musically than the Proceed AVP2, Meridian G68 or Halcro SSP-200 I had before. I know the Onkyo 886 was not even close musically, I really only used it for movies as I would get fatigued quickly for music but I have never run Pro on it.

I do not see your point. Nor do the papers refute the notion that the X-curve concept is the best we have got now, in spite of possible nits some have raised.

The conclusion to the first paper is:

"The X-curve is probably not perfect, and neither are the measurement techniques employed. It should be remembered that the X-curve represented a radical change in film sound practice and led to a revolution in film sound quality."

The second paper concludes:

"A new measurement system is needed. Whenever it arrives, the inventors will find themselves standing on the shoulders of Ioan Allen. Until we have a reliable method for measuring what something sounds like, it turns out that his original approach to the equalization of those older theatre speakers of the 1970's, remains the best solution to tuning a sound system."

Both papers illustrate the amount of scientific thinking and research that went into the concept. All that seems to square exactly with what I said. So, I have no idea what you think might be better. I know of no acoustician or speaker measurement guru who believes that measured, farfield in-room response should be anything other than rolled off. Do you? The only questions for quibbling seem to be how do you measure and by how much do you roll off?

Do those statements sound like "solid, accepted science" to you? The X Curve is accepted but it's nothing I would call solid nor science.

Howdy,

I need some help. I have an 8805 and Audyssey Pro. When performing a calibration, the transfer of data takes forever via my wireless net. It takes hours to do an 8 point cal. Am I doing something wrong. Is there a way to speed things up?

Thanks for your help,
Mike

Don't know anything about your wireless reception ... have you opened the wireless adapter's properties and looked at connection speed?

I always use wired connections for Pro cals ...

Jeff

Markus, both conclude, however grudgingly, that it's the only scheme right now. Beyond that, I don't think either suggested a successor.

Do you have one?

Jeff