The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 120

 

Hi Fitz - I don't think, when I measure independently with OmniMic, that I am 'questioning' the Audyssey results and I am definitely not trying to reproduce them. The value of my independent measuring is that it lets me improve on Audyssey's automated results by showing me the actual post-calibration responses in my room. A couple of examples of this are the way that I managed, along with OmniMic, to tweak the sub distance and remove a big dip around the XO frequency and the way that the Target Curve Editor allowed me to make a couple of small adjustments that flattened the Audyssey-set response even more.

I do not know of any reason to believe that XT/32 is not better than XT in the highs. Usually, not nearly as much correction is necessary there, and unless your speakers are peaky, issues tend to be more broadband. Whatever the case, XT/32's enhanced filter resolution should, if anything, do an even better job there than XT. I hear no issues whatsoever with its correction in the mids and highs, though XT did do a nice job with them when I was using that. Personally, in my system, although room modes are the biggest problem, I also think that what Audyssey does in the mids and highs is quite important

Earlier this year, there was a lengthy discussion on the difference between XT and XT32. Measurements of the pre-out signals clearly showed a shift in focus between the two technologies. XT expended a lot more effort on the higher frequencies. XT32 paid less attention to the higher frequencies, and focused more of its correction power on the lower frequencies. At the time, there was a consensus that this shift was a positive change.

It is perhaps possible under some circumstances to further improve on what Audyssey does. I agree that particularly with multiple subs, which I do not have and do not feel the need for, independent measurements may be quite necessary. Also, the Seaton sub distance tweak, which makes logical sense to me, really requires independent measurements. But, I am not convinced that all independent measurements necessarily lead to better sound. I am an agnostic on that point, particularly given the differences in spatial averaging techniques, time windowing, frequency smoothing, etc. that occur between Audyssey and independent measurement protocols. I tend to put my faith more in the research that Audyssey has done in the many choices that have made in the approach that they provide. It may be blind faith, because I do not know any better than anyone all that is in their secret and proprietary techniques.

Underlying this is an understanding that room acoustics coupled with perceptual psychoacoustics is mind bogglingly complex. Audyssey has drastically simplified the correction process for us by incorporating all that into their very competent, if still imperfect, product. I am just not sure that a lot of extra work in independent measurements by a lay person like me is necessarily going to lead to a better result in terms of perceived sonics. It might lead to a different result, but I might be biased by all the work I have done into only believing it is better. For example, I know plenty of audiophiles, dealers as well, who believed that throwing a lot of room treatments at the problem was going to make the sound better. They thought so, but, in many cases, I, independently, really did not think so.

Audio always involves a tricky balance between measurement and subjective, perceptual assessment. I do not think that either alone gives the complete picture and either might be biased by a whole lot of factors.

Anybody try the new verizon to see if the bugs listed in this blog have been addressed?

Sorry

New version not verizon.

I remember that - and no question you're right as a generality of the relative processing applied. But what I'm wondering about is the results....is there any degredation of correction of the higher frequencies for XT32 relative to XT? I agree that I'd rather have better equalization of the subs and lower frequencies than the higher if that were the tradeoff that had to be made. However, did anyone quantify what this means at, say, 1/6th smoothing? That is, as an A/B/X test, does XT32 correct less from 300 Hz to 15 kHz, assuming other features are held constant (i.e. the same speaker configuration and room)? I don't have an XT receiver, of course, but I'm thinking (hoping?) that someone did this test at some point. I went from a Pioneer to XT32, so I have no idea what XT was like vs. XT32 personally.

If this is opening the sarcophagus, well, I saw the degree of improvement in the higher frequencies in the PDF I'd referenced, so it got me thinking. I'm expecting that XT32 would 'beat' XT across the board, but since we've occasionally disproved conventional wisdom...

Edit: I still have my old Pioneer SC-27 and an AS-EQ1 on the island of misfit toys (the latter because I naively didn't save the box and packing stuff or the rack ears, figuring I'd never need them two years ago, so selling the lot might be an issue). One day I may get around to doing the MCACC+bass EQ vs. XT32 test, but that's about 70th on the priority list right now.
Edited by sdrucker - 12/19/12 at 4:42pm

Reposted from the 8801 Owner's thread ...

I expect as much too..but the USC presentation and some of the discussion we've had about the Curve Editor got me thinking...thinking can be a dangerous thing, of course:D

Bottom line is that I think you're right, but just wondering if it's actually ever been tested. Wonder if anyone has the graphs....it's the kind of thing Keith or AustinJerry would do for kicks......

Edit: wonder if this could be 'approximated' by doing a Pro XT32 run with just satellites (for laughs, I can run my Mythos powered mains + center as full range) and comparing to my normal XT32 Pro run with dual subs and my powered mains. Again, I'd only be interested in mid and higher frequencies. Assuming it's not a fool's errand, that is....if it is, that's worth knowing too...

Sorry, I'm in a heretical mood...or channeling my inner Scrooge McDuck
Edited by sdrucker - 12/19/12 at 5:58pm

Apparently, they are able to say this now ...

Yay - a grateful nation breathes a sigh of relief

OK, now I need to get sold on the 4520 LOL....

My reputation is intact. When I upgraded to the 4520, I moved my 4311 to the bedroom system, displacing a 4308, which I subsequently sold. Being always curious about the differences between XT and XT32, I conducted a test as part of the upgrade process. I ran a special 8-position Pro calibration in my living room using the 4311. I then unplugged the 4311, and replaced it with the 4308, and ran a second 8-position calibration, using the same 8 measurement spots that I used with the 4311 (I mark my spots with those little red adhesive dots on the floor). Since all other things were constant, I claim this is as close to a scientific comparison as I can accomplish. For each calibration, I measured the signal from the AVR pre-outs, which is the accepted way of observing what Audyssey is doing to the signal.

I had originally planned to publish the results but, since we had already had a discussion earlier, I figured my report would be redundant. I still have the measurement data and, if you think it would be interesting, I would be happy to dust it off and publish it here. Is it worth the effort?

I am excited about the fix for the 4520 serial transfer rates. I intend to test this out tonight or tomorrow to verify the issue has been resolved, and I'll post my results.

I'd say yes...at worst, it confirms conventional wisdom and SOM's instincts, and further demonstrates the overall superiority of XT32. And if you find a difference, documenting where it occurs is useful not only to issues of placement and listening axis, but is something that Audyssey may want to comment on.

Is it a priority over a new run with the 3.6 upgrade? YMMV...

Edit: I asked the oracle on Audyssey's FB page, and his response:
There is no tradeoff. XT32 uses a more advanced method for correcting the high frequencies than XT. It involves smoothing to avoid going after narrow (inaudible) peaks and dips.
Edited by sdrucker - 12/19/12 at 7:47pm

 

Good news!

 

I have tested the serial transfer rates, and the slow transfer rate is indeed resolved.  I am now measuring a transfer rate that is actually marginally faster than the 4311.  An 8-position calibration for a full 11.1 configuration now will take 58 minutes, versus a full 60 minutes for the 4311.

 

Needless to say, for 4520 owners, this is huge.  I'll report my results to Audyssey and close the case.

Congrats, Jerry! Your persistence has finally paid off. IIRC, Audyssey initially blamed Denon for the bug and then later, Denon blamed Audyssey.

Mark

Congrats, Jerry! Your persistence has finally paid off. IIRC, Audyssey initially blamed Denon for the bug and then later, Denon blamed Audyssey.

Mark

 

I'm going to try and find out what the root cause was.  I'm not sure either Denon or Audyssey will be forthcoming with this information, but we'll see.

Virtual hi-five to Jerry......

FWIW, I'm doing a fresh Pro Cal on the 4311 with the new software on Friday afternoon due to a speaker reposition. I'm home alone over the weekend, and the odds of a sudden case of the flu are about 100%...
Edited by sdrucker - 12/19/12 at 8:28pm

Here is my analysis of an XT vs XT32 Pro calibration.

 

The test:

 

- Denon 4308 with MultEQ XT

- Denon 4311 with MultEQ XT32

- 8-position Pro calibration, using the same 8 positions for each AVR

- Test done on same day, with no other changes to the equipment, room, treatments, etc.

- Measurements taken for left, center and right channel from the AVR pre-out connections.

- In-room frequency response measurements using REW and EMM-6 calibrated mic, from same positions as the Audyssey calibration.

 

Left channel pre-out (no smoothing, blue is XT red is XT32):

 

 

Right channel pre-out (no smoothing):

 

 

Center channel pre-out (no smoothing):

 

 

In-room frequency response using REW (bass frequencies, no smoothing):

 

 

In-room frequency response using REW (10-20,000Hz, 1/6 smoothing)

 

 

 

My thoughts:  the pre-out measurement support the hypothesis that XT focuses more on the high end, while XT32 focuses on the low end.  And looking at the in-room measurements, one might conclude that XT32 is doing a better overall job in smoothing my room's response.

 

Comments?

I couldn't agree more. And it confirms what Chris said on FB.

 

Who do I send my consulting bill to?

 

Edit:  BTW, I owe a debt of gratitude to Markus767, who assisted me in making these measurements.

ccotenj

He's spent enough of my money

Hi Jerry. This is the best graphical comparison of XT vs XT32 that I've seen. Crystal clear.

This thread is transforming into an Audyssey experts thread, instead of just Audyssey Pro because these tests could have been done without Audyssey Pro. Maybe that's a good idea.

Mark

sadly, he's gonna have to agree to 90 day terms on that invoice, because the well is empty right now...

i merely lead the horse to the water... it's up to the horse whether it drinks or not...

@jerry... that is GREAT news, re: serial transfer rates... i'll give it a shot... hopefully tonight, assuming i get the pile of equipment that is outside the rack back IN the rack...

even a non-audyssey owner like me can see the difference. just looking at them, I would agree with your conclusion about hi end vs lo end, at least in your room.

I'm dipping my toe tips in the tire kicking waters...again winter does that to me, look for "things to do"
this is the kind of objective comparisons needed to make "objective" decisions

 

Great work, Jerry! 

 

If you are considering a unit with Audyssey, remember that the really big step forward is from XT to XT32. The Pro Kit is 'the icing on the cake' and allows for more measuring positions, pre/post correction graphs, the ability to edit the Target Curve to 'fine tune' the calibration, easy saving and reloading of different calibrations - for different room configurations (say for music and for movies) or to allow easy experimentation and the ability to go back to a 'known good' calibration, a more accurate, individually calibrated mic etc.

I got substantially different sub distances with the new version 3.6 . i have not tried to vary the sub distances yet to improve response around the xover.

System sounds very nice and for the first time phantom placement of speakers seems good in the DVE pan around the room test.

Anybody else tried the new version with two subs?