The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 119

Hey, when I had the Denon 5803 in pre-room correction days, I used to use the coffee house simulated mode (I think it was called Jazz Club) How else could you listen to John Zorn?

I bet they've done focus groups and found that there's still a considerable number of users that use those legacy DSP modes with CD or MP3s ...and if my guess is right, more than use XT32 (let alone Pro) for Denon AVRs. Hence their 'loss' would be a marketing disaster for the first manufacturer that dropped them.

There's a guy on the Pioneer threads (ss9001, kind of a Last of the Mohicans sophisticate) who's periodically in touch with a US marketing guy from that company. I may put it up to him to ping the Pioneer guy to see if I'm right.
Edited by sdrucker - 12/15/12 at 11:53am

 

Oh yes, I can do network support now. Well, so long as it only involves plugging in one of those cable things with the funny end...

I am using an Integra dhc-80.3 . I can not find any thing in the set-up menu with a mic icon or anything labeled 'parameter check'.
On my processor the only way I know of bringing up the Audyssey setup screen is to physically hook up the xt32 mic that came with the 80.3.
What am I missing??

Tom

 

All that stuff is Denon-specific. Doesn't exist on Onkyos/Integras. The only way to see the results of the Audyssey cal when it is finished, for Onkyo users, is to go into the speaker setup menu and see what levels and trims it has set. 

 

That's interesting, Keith.  So if a Onkyo user doesn't write down the initial values set by Audyssey, and subsequently makes changes to these values, there is no way in the AVR's menu to check what the original settings were?

 

It used to get me all the time when I was writing the FAQ - I’d assume that how the Onkyo did it was how they all did it, but as we now know, each AVR manufacturer will have his own special way to incorporate Audyssey into the AVR. The end result is the same but the way to get there isn't necessarily.

 

That is correct. It's why my iPhone is such an essential part of the kit - every time I make changes, I record the old settings with a photo. As the photos carry date and time info, it's easy to know what is what. The Denon way is better by the sound of it.

Thanks again for the quick answers.
Lesson learned.
Write 'em down or take a picture or snip. Or lose it forever.
Live and learn.

Tom

I always save the Pro graphs page for my calibrations. As long as you do not override them, which I do not, the critical settings for each channel are under the corresponding graph.

Given the nature of the graphs, the settings you mention are the real value in them.

Jeff

 

There is only one sub graph, so if you have two subs, this doesn't help.  Since the Pro bug affects the settings for multiple subs, you should write the settings down.

Good point. So I guess the graphs are totally worthless as a way of dealing with this.

I know that, for better or for worse, most here are into dual subwoofers and independent measurements. So, I understand your disdain for the Pro graphs. Personally, I find them useful for more than just the trim, distance and xover parameters. I believe they could be improved upon, however. But, I think that Pro has probably been a disappointment to the company in terms of creating revenues from armies of new Installers, which is what the graphs were designed for. It seems to me that the installer market has just not materialized, so I think Pro is not going to get serious attention in new features and improvements designed for the sophisticated audiophile market, which is where Pro seems successful, but on a very limited scale. So, I think we are stuck with the graphs and other Pro features pretty much as they are. New Pro releases are likely to be just about supporting the never ending parade of newer processors. Still, in spite of its limitations and imperfections, I would not be without it.

I am with you on most of that, but I don't bother to generate graphs for myself ... or for customers. You'll get a discussion about linear theory from Audyssey, but the graphs are calculated. And they are calculated with their secret sauce. This is why independent measurements are done.

Exactly - besides which there's little control over the resolution or the scale of the graphs that we have. You need IMO independent measurement to know whether Audyssey Pro is truly addressing problem areas accurately, or other tweaks are needed to get an optimal response. For example, the distance adjustment, repositioning of satellites or subs, how subs are gain/level matched, or whether to add more subs. The Pro graphs are also weak by not measuring interaction effects between speakers.

Given the limited market for Pro, I hope that we don't see Audyssey go the route of MCACC, where it's essentially a finished product, with only minor changes (i.e. Precison Distance for better controlling distance for speakers) changing over several years. But except for things like LFC, which is a 'user friendly' bell and whistle, Audyssey is clearly putting its R&D into the iDevice & Wifi world, not AVRs.

Granted XT32+Pro is the best commercial RC out there, particularly for LF response, but sooner or later someone will come up with something better for a commercial market. The only downside is it might not be in this price level of AVRs, to begin to justify the cost.

Unfortunately, the real problem IMO is the business model. What you really need is the equivalent of R. Something where open source code can be added and made modular to add add'l features for room correction, but a financial model that could monetize it to a degree that would make it worthwhile to Audyssey, if not Denon. The only way that would be practical would be a subscription approach to licensing Audyssey for the AVRs, and a royalty model that might make it worthwhile for manufacturers. How you do that exactly is beyond me....

Anyone know how to do a Pro calibration on an Integra 70.4?

I've gotten close to zero support from the Audyssey help/email system

On my old outboard Audyssey Balanced Pro unit I went from the Audyssey Mic to the Mic input on the Audsyssey preamp, and line out from the Audyssey preamp to the line in on the outboard balanced Pro. My laptop was connected to the Balanced Pro unit via rs232. It was easy and worked every time.

On my Integra if I do essentially the same thing, connecting my laptop to the Integra via the Audyssey Pro 3.6 software via IP/port access. I think I am connected to the Integra because it reports back to the 3.6 software on my laptop the serial number of the Integra, which it matches up to my install code/key which it asks me to enter.

I then take the mic output cable to the to the mic input on the Audyssey preamp, and the line output cable from the Audyssey preamp to the Integra mic input jack.

The Integra reports a signal from the mic (I see it on the TV monitor) but the Audsyssey Pro laptop 3.6 program reads no signal and won't move forward.

The instructions on the little mini screen on the laptop 3.6 program suggest plugging the line of the Audyssey preamp into the PC (mic input?), but the only way to do that would be to plug it into the microphone input jack on my laptop. That makes zero sense, because that input isn't remotely calibrated/flat (I know that because Room EQ Wizzard does a zero out routine on that if you use REW rather than Audyssey.)

Anyone on this forum that can help? (It's been a frustrating experience thus far.)

Wrong input.  One of the line level inputs is used.  Check the specific release notes for your AVR.

Kal, any suggestion where to find that? I don't see it anywhere in the user manual (which is largely silent on anything other than a standard, not Pro, calibration) and don't see it anywhere on the Audyssey site either.

I've submitted the question twice to Audyssey and they responded back both times with a generic Word document that doesn't address the question.

On the Installer site at Audyssey.  You need to have an installer account but, if you have pro, you can have an account.  Under downloads or docs, there are specific app notes for groups of AVRs/processors.

 

Audyssey's documentation for Pro is rubbish. I have just checked the Installer site for you and there are no documents for the 70.4 (nor any that I could find which reference the 70.4). Many Integra units have used the RS232 connector and suitable USB-RS232 connectors are provided with the Pro Kit. I suggest you try connecting to the RS232 port on your unit and see if that works.

 

If you ask Audyssey the simple question: "on an Integra 70.4 unit where do I connect the Pro Kit preamp output" they surely will be able to give you the answer.

 

Also, the online help in the program itself (left hand side of window) is supposed to tell you where to connect the lead, but on my Onkyo 5509 it tells you to connect it to the Left Aux In jack on the rear of the unit, when in fact it has to be connected to the L PC Input on the unit. This caused me a lot of unnecessary grief too the first time I used Pro.

The "latest" downloadable Pro documentation (for Onk/Integra) are the 885/886/9.8/9.9 generation. Documentation for more recent model is in-app, but as Keith points out, it is incorrect in some cases.

Coming here to this thread, Brucemck2, will get you the latest information and tips that you probably can't get from Audyssey.

Jeff

According to all the relevant docs regarding Onkyo and Integra, the mic preamp output is connected to AUX1 on the rear panel of the device.  I understand that there might be some exceptions but the on-screen instructions usually state which input to use for the particular device connected.

The 70.4 doesn't have an AUX input, but does have both a PC input and a Phono input.

I'm going to have my installer pull the unit from the rack to gain access to the rear panel. At that time I'm going to try both the PC and Phono inputs (I suspect the PC input is the proper one), and, rs232 connectivity.

Appreciate the help.

When I go into a period where I am making system/room changes, and re-calibrating, I keep one of the Pro mini-XLR cables attached to the (Pro-supplied) mini-XLR-to-phono adapter connected to the L PC input all the time. (I have the Onkyo 5508.) I also keep phono cables connected to the LCR analog bypass inputs ... for REW measurements.

I'd bet that the PC input is correct for your model.

 

Same here. Getting to the back of my gear is a nightmare. Makes re-cals a lot easier to have that patch lead already in position.

I do not really have a problem with the graphs being predicted rather than actual. As long as the prediction is done accurately according to the same algorithm that the EQ itself uses, it should be a measure by the same assumptions as Audyssey EQ itself of what is going to happen when you use it with audio in the room. It is the same room presumably under unchanged conditions as when the measurements were taken, pre EQ. Of course, since we do not know the secrets of the proprietary algorithm, that accuracy is not independently verifiable. I think this is what bothers many people here. But, I really have no reason to believe that they are not doing the calculations for the predicted result anything but accurately.

I also believe that in their research they chose a much more sophisticated algorithm that was much more difficult to implement than almost anyone can duplicate via independent measurements and simple arithmetic spatial averaging. That is one reason, among several, why it may be difficult to duplicate their predicted results. But which is right from the standpoint of audible perception - Audyssey or the independent measurements? Many here seem to assume that the independent measurements are right and Audyssey is therefore wrong. Is that really true when weighted by psychoacoustic perception? But, it does not help matters that the graphs obscure certain details. However, the greater precision of independent measurements does not in all cases equate with greater accuracy of the perceived result.

Even so, I think the most valid complaint about the Pro graphs, aside from doing just one subwoofer response graph, is that they lack precision in the lower frequencies. 1/6 octave smoothing might be fine for higher frequencies - research indicates it is - but may not be in the bass for those desiring the ultimate tweak, even above the sub xover. Even so, just because the graphs use 1/6 octave does not mean that is what Audyssey EQ itself uses across any or all frequencies. Do we know? Many posts ago I cited a Widescreen Review article by Amir that provided insight into this. He responded here describing a JBL EQ system that does provide graphic output with variable smoothing as a function of frequency which is more precise in the bass than in the higher frequencies, closer to theoretical perception. It seems to me that something like that would be ideal for Audyssey, but seems beyond the scope of anything they might want to do. There is always hope they might someday.

^^^

Yep.

Question for the thread: is there a more detailed report of how Audyssey works than
http://ee.usc.edu/assets/005/56551.pdf

I understand fuzzy clustering (put 'simply', a form of dimension reduction of the measurement 'objects' with overlapping centroids), but there's no other real information except results here.

Also, if I read these graphs correctly, at least with MultiEQ, they're showing quite a bit of 'improvement' in higher frequencies. I agree that LF below 200 Hz is more critical, but practically, can XT32 improve higher frequencies _less_ than previous versions of Audyssey? I would think not, but has anyone done independent measurement of XT vs. XT32 to find out?