or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread (FAQ in post #1)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 137

post #4081 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

 

Yes, I did know SoM. What I am saying is that it makes me unhappy. If I told them I had bought a new unit and gave them the new MAC number, then nobody could use the software to calibrate the old unit any more. Audyssey wouldn't be subject to being ripped-off in anyway

.  

Not so.  Anyone who bought your old unit could use that license.................if they knew about it.

They'd have to have a Pro kit of course - but I take your point. I still think it's a tad unreasonable though to have to buy a fresh licence just because i have bought a new AVP. I can't really complain I guess - as SoM and Jerry have said, I knew this when I 'joined the club'.  I think there must be a 'better way'. 

post #4082 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


I am not saying that XT32 is the equal of or the same as Pro. Audyssey, in general, is a terrific tool. It was originally designed to enable the guy in the street, with an untreated room and no interest at all in acoustics, to get a pretty good sound from his new AVR, automatically. No real knowledge or skill needed - follow a few basic instructions and everyone can get a decent setup, especially with XT32.

But people have been getting very good sounds for many years, without XT32 or Pro. Pro studios are obviously one example. They show that with some effort, dedication, knowledge and room treatments, plus some PEQ, it is possible to get a very, very good sound. These people are not, of course, run of the mill users. But then, neither are quite a lot of the readers of this thread. We have studied the issues, adopted multiple subs to smooth out our bass, room treatments to help us with modes and reflections, REW to measure and enable us to know what is happening in the room and what needs attention, and PEQ to deal with the pesky problems that all of the former cannot. 

Indeed, when one has invested the time to learn how to use REW, one can see many of the inadequacies of the automated system. We can see that Pro's 'predicted' graphs are far, far from an accurate representation of the end result in our rooms. We can also see there is much room for improvement and we use REW and the other tools in our toolbox to that end. 

To some of your detailed points Stuart: yes Pro allows for up to 32 measurements. But who needs that many? Maybe the professional installer who is setting up a multi-tier seating arrangement in a big room. They can continue to use Pro - many of them of course don't and rely on other methods. But for hobbyists, how many use use 32 positions?  Or 20? Or even 15? In my room I usually use 9. One more than XT32 allows. Yes, it is very useful to be able to save and reload measurements - a definite plus. If you have a Denon, you don't need it though and you can do the same with XT32. The suggestions for multiple crossovers is interesting but I am not sure how useful it is. I always have to do a lot of additional work to optimise my crossovers after Pro has finished, so Pro isn’t exactly fantastic in that area. It can’t be can it - it doesn’t measure the subs and speakers together, which is the only way to see what is really happening at the XO. 

The Curve Editor is Audyssey telling us that Pro does not do a perfect job and may need after-calibration tweaking. But as a tool for the latter it is severely limited with its ,ax 3dB boost or cut and its complete lack of bandwidth adjustment. I am not really sure how much real-world use it is. But I know it is a fraction of the use of a cheap PEQ like the Behringer 1124P. When you say there is "only a handful" of people using PEQ that isn't actually the case. If you search the net you will find whole forums full to bursting of people who have eschewed the automated Audyssey route in favour of PEQ and total control over their systems.  PEQ should not really be needed for any speakers other than subs as their issues can usually be corrected by room treatments, speaker placement and good choice of speakers in the first place. To EQ subs all you need is a $100 Behringer and a REW setup, which latter many Pro users already have it seems. I agree that independent PEQ is not as user-friendly as Audyssey - but nothing can be as user-friendly as an automated system!

Does Pro use the same algorithms as XT32?  No idea. But XT32 does a terrific job, I do know that. Sure, the mic is less accurate, but it is accurate enough it seems. Expensive, calibrated mics only really come into their own for the higher frequencies - for bass, which is where EQ is really needed, a decent mic is apparently good enough. 

Now having said all that, I am not trying to make out that Pro is useless. Far from it. But it is not cheap - you mention $500 for a sophisticated DSP, but Pro costs far more than that. And an additional $150 if you want to buy a new AVR or AVP. All I am saying is that once one gets to a certain level of understanding, Pro becomes less useful because there are other tools that can do what it does for less money and possibly also give a superior result. Personally, I love what XT32 does and cannot imagine buying a unit that didn’t have it, unless something demonstrably better comes along. As for Pro, I am less convinced. The fact that I know it requires considerable after-calibration tweaking, according to every measurement graph I have ever seen, seems to demonstrate that it can go so far but no further.

So to summarise: my personal take is: XT32, brilliant, essential even. Pro, useful but what it does can be done with other tools, possibly better. The downside to the latter is a steep learning curve which requires some time and effort to master.

And I still think it's unnecessary for Audyssey to charge an additional licence fee for the hobbyist user who wants to EQ one unit only smile.gif

Keith - I think we agree on Audyssey Pro's (and in general, Audyssey's) deficiencies, the biggest being the lack of optimization of speakers and subs jointly, accessing the results on of actual rather than 1/6 smoothing predicted measurements, and a crude PEQ with no bandwidth or greater octave or adjustable gain/boost on FR resolution. And I agree that an automated solution by itself isn't as sensitive, or as final, as a combination of room treatments, speaker/sub placement, and PEQ applied by an expert acoustician or master user. But as sophisticated as the users on this thread can be, we can have room challenges, a lack of placement options, and WAF issues that prevent us from having a dedicated, treatment HT room which makes a Pro kit useful compared to other tools.

My point is that Pro as a tool takes us more there than not having it in the mix, for the type of users that would gravitate to it. It's clearly not an "end-all" solution for anyone that has access to independent measurement tools! But I should have been clearer about PEQ use with Audyssey, where I tend to be focused on XT32 as the standard (and to be fair, you've been on the Audyssey thread far longer than I've been, which only dates back about two years). From reading AVS Audyssey, MiniDSP, Antimode, and our own REW thread, as well as glancing at HTS, my sense is that PEQ devices are being used more as a supplement to versions less capable than Audyssey XT32, for setups with no room correction, or for multi-sub configurations on systems without Sub EQ than as a mainstream practice with XT32, particularly with Pro. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

As for measurements, I don't do more than 8-12 myself anymore, so I agree there. But the Pro kit has to appeal to a broader audience than just us...hence having flexibility for multi-seat positioning is desirable. The multiple crossover points are 'food for thought', and not absolutes (especially since the ordering isn't always consistent, and we know that any recommendation of Large is to be taken with several grains of salt).

BTW, if we didn't have Pro, you'd have to experiment with speaker placement, treatments, and/or use PEQ to reproduce the Mid-Range compensation effect to taste, above and beyond what's in consumer Audyssey...and you'd have to do that on speakers given the frequencies.

I hope you realize we're discussing, not arguing: we usually agree far more than not tongue.gif. And these days you're about the closest thing we have on the REW thread, and on some of these, to a 'leader' LOL.....

I also think it's an overpriced tool with an archaic multi-user license structure, but that's another issue. But until someone writes an R application for room correction that improves on Audyssey and works with a kit like REW, there's worse alternatives.
Edited by sdrucker - 3/21/13 at 12:45pm
post #4083 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

Keith - I think we agree on Audyssey Pro's (and in general, Audyssey's) deficiencies, the biggest being the lack of optimization of speakers and subs jointly, accessing the results on of actual rather than 1/6 smoothing predicted measurements, and a crude PEQ with no bandwidth or greater octave or adjustable gain/boost on FR resolution. And I agree that an automated solution by itself isn't as sensitive, or as final, as a combination of room treatments, speaker/sub placement, and PEQ applied by an expert acoustician or master user. But as sophisticated as the users on this thread can be, we can have room challenges, a lack of placement options, and WAF issues that prevent us from having a dedicated, treatment HT room which makes a Pro kit less useful than other tools.

 

 

Agreed.

 

Quote:
My point is that Pro as a tool takes us more there than not having it in the mix, for the type of users that would gravitate to it. It's clearly not and "end-all" solution for anyone that has access to independent measurement tools! But I should have been clearer about PEQ use with Audyssey, where I tend to be focused on XT32 as the standard (and to be fair, you've been on the Audyssey thread far longer than I've been, which only dates back about two years). From reading AVS Audyssey, MiniDSP, Antimode, and our own REW thread, as well as glancing at HTS, my sense is that PEQ devices are being used more as a supplement to versions less capable than Audyssey XT32, for setups with no room correction, or for multi-sub configurations on systems without Sub EQ than as a mainstream practice with XT32, particularly with Pro. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

 

 

I think that some people will use XT32 alone, some will use it with Pro, some will not use Audyssey at all, some will use Audyssey plus PEQ, some will use PEQ alone. I think they are all tools in our tool box and we should use them according to our abilities and the problems we are trying to fix. Pro is good, no doubt about it. But so are the other tools, although they may be harder to use.

 

Quote:
As for measurements, I don't do more than 8-12 myself anymore, so I agree there. But the Pro kit has to appeal to a broader audience than just us...hence having flexibility for multi-seat positioning is desirable.

 

 

I wonder what the 'average' number of positions is here?  I originally used 12 or even more - mainly I think it was because 'I could'. Eventually I realised that more than 9 or 10 didn't seem to make any real difference but took a lot longer.

Quote:
BTW, if we didn't have Pro, you'd have to experiment with speaker placement, treatments, and/or use PEQ to reproduce the Mid-Range compensation effect to taste, above and beyond what's in consumer Audyssey...and you'd have to do that on speakers given the frequencies.

 

 

I am not sure about MRC. Does XT32 apply MRC? If not, then I can't say I noticed any problem with the lack of it before I had Pro. MRC makes an assumption about your speaker crossovers that may or may not be correct. When the BBC invented it decades ago, they has a very specific speaker in mind.

 

Quote:
I hope you realize we're discussing, not arguing: we usually agree far more than not tongue.gif. And these days you're about the closest thing we have on the REW thread, and on some of these, to a 'leader' LOL.....

 

 

Oh sure. Just a discussion among friends while there are no 'serious' issues going on in the thread. Blimey - if the REW thread is looking to me as a 'leader', we're in deep sh1t :)

 

Quote:
I also think it's an overpriced tool with an archaic multi-user license structure, but that's another issue. But until someone writes an R application for room correction that improves on Audyssey and works with a kit like REW, there's worse alternatives.

 

 

Agreed. I love XT32 and I like Pro. I am happy with what Pro has done for me - all I am saying is there are more ways to skin a cat...

post #4084 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

They'd have to have a Pro kit of course - but I take your point. I still think it's a tad unreasonable though to have to buy a fresh licence just because i have bought a new AVP. I can't really complain I guess - as SoM and Jerry have said, I knew this when I 'joined the club'.  I think there must be a 'better way'. 

I agree with you but the business model seems to have been built with the expectation that Pro would, in fact, be sold primarily to..........pros.  If that was the case, the license would stay with the particular device and the owner could call on a different "pro" for calibration at a later date without incurring another license fee.  That seems reasonable but not if the majority of purchasers are end-users as it seems to have turned out.

post #4085 of 5258
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

...I am not sure about MRC. Does XT32 apply MRC? If not, then I can't say I noticed any problem with the lack of it before I had Pro. MRC makes an assumption about your speaker crossovers that may or may not be correct. When the BBC invented it decades ago, they has a very specific speaker in mind...
Yes of course it does. Who are you and what have you done with Keith? biggrin.gif
Pro allows for a whole lot of customization of this tweak should you so desire
Quote:
The Curve Editor is Audyssey telling us that Pro does not do a perfect job and may need after-calibration tweaking.
Perhaps. But it certainly does allow for tweaking regardless of whether the EQ i s "perfect" or not. Individual customization-including to one's preference-is something many want out of Audyssey. For $700 they have it, along with the many other useful features.

IMO XT32 & Pro is the best value in sophisticated RC DSP.
post #4086 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Yes of course it does. Who are you and what have you done with Keith? biggrin.gif
Pro allows for a whole lot of customization of this tweak should you so desire
Perhaps. But it certainly does allow for tweaking regardless of whether the EQ i s "perfect" or not. Individual customization-including to one's preference-is something many want out of Audyssey. For $700 they have it, along with the many other useful features.

IMO XT32 & Pro is the best value in sophisticated RC DSP.

Keith picked up a Behringer Feedback Destroyer about two weeks ago, and is now in love with the idea of PEQ - at least experimentally - to improve his room, above and beyond where he currently is. See the REW thread for more details.....it's a few days before the Bob Dylan concert reviews we were exchanging... tongue.gif

I actually agree with you SOM - it's an incredible value if you're not putting in the steep, collective learning curve for usage of REW (or for the less determined, OmniMic), the string test to ID reflections and place room treatments, PEQ, and other fripperies which lead to 'audio nirvana' by themselves cool.gif

Not that we can't improve on Audyssey. The question is how much is 'real' and how much is acute graphitis nervosa. That's a YMMV call. I'm personally going to look at plan A, which is the Curve Editor and playing more conclusively with REW (i.e. the distance tweak, given the 'best practices' we're using there), and max that out before I jump into the PEQ rabbit hole. Not that it's not tempting, but it's a marathon, not a sprint, to do right. Plus to go the way I'd want to go, I'd have to start thinking about adjusting jumpers and testing voltages on unbalanced inputs, or the joys of Phoenix connections.

Somewhere on this thread there's a post from last year, where after much experimentation with phase adjustments and iterative reruns of Audyssey Pro, Mr. Barnes concluded that his room was "as good as it's going to be". And that was before the Seaton Submersives replaced his old subs, and he dove more fully into the room treatments and the Behringer. How things change....
Edited by sdrucker - 3/21/13 at 5:18pm
post #4087 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

I agree with you but the business model seems to have been built with the expectation that Pro would, in fact, be sold primarily to..........pros.  If that was the case, the license would stay with the particular device and the owner could call on a different "pro" for calibration at a later date without incurring another license fee.  That seems reasonable but not if the majority of purchasers are end-users as it seems to have turned out.

Apparently Audyssey never bargained for the Pro kit being an end-user product more than one for CIs. They still have the paradigm that consumer usage of Pro is "off-label". What's funny is that at least some of us 'installers' have found Audyssey more limited than the CI folks that were the original target, if "Ask Audyssey" or Audyssey Tech Talk is any indication. Of course, their CI users may only work through Luke and not post on Internet forums smile.gif.
post #4088 of 5258
Well, not originally. But they quickly changed course when enthusiasts began getting their hands on them. They also found out that some of their distributors didn't give a whit about enforcing the "Pro only" sales policy, and just wanted to move SKU's. At that point Audyssey seemed to have decided to make a few extra bucks on each kit and take in some more license revenue.
post #4089 of 5258
I got this email from Audyssey support today:

Hi Bill,

As this is something that was previously working with the same software, we are going to test the same AVR and see what results we get.

Thank you,
Support – Audyssey Laboratories, Inc.


So Audyssey is going to try and duplicate my issue with PRO on not giving a chirp during calibration with pro on 2nd position LSurr and not recognizing the 7th channel and sub channel.
post #4090 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsoko2 View Post

I got this email from Audyssey support today:

Hi Bill,

As this is something that was previously working with the same software, we are going to test the same AVR and see what results we get.

Thank you,
Support – Audyssey Laboratories, Inc.


So Audyssey is going to try and duplicate my issue with PRO on not giving a chirp during calibration with pro on 2nd position LSurr and not recognizing the 7th channel and sub channel.


We tried the problem 80.3 back at our office and we were able to complete the Audyssey pro calibration on a five channel system without any problems. We are still not sure what the problem is,but it would almost have be to network related. Perhaps the IP address has something to do with it? Nick is going to experiment over the weekend at home with a couple of different routers and IP addresses. Hopefully we can gain some insight into what is going on.
post #4091 of 5258
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

... the steep, collective learning curve for usage of REW (or for the less determined, OmniMIc), the string test to ID reflections and place room treatments, PEQ, and other fripperies...
Exactly. The steep learning curve and sheer amount of time and work involved is what's kept me from diving further down the technical HT rabbit hole. After these past few years of learning, upgrading and tweaking, my system sounds really good-especially for a non-dedicated untreated room. And the video ain't bad neither. So I've accomplished my objective in that now listening to music and watching movies is wonderfully rewarding-I look forward to it daily to relax, wind down and appreciate some of my favorite art.

I have already gone pretty far out the asymptotic curve of diminishing returns in better SQ per $ spent buying gear. I'm pretty sure that theremaining significant SQ improvements will require formal, properly done acoustic room treatments. And I just can't commit to the work it will take to improve SQ at this point.


Of course I appreciate and respect those who get so much enjoyment from that aspect of the hobby as well. To Keith, I say carry on, old chap. smile.gif
post #4092 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Exactly. The steep learning curve and sheer amount of time and work involved is what's kept me from diving further down the technical HT rabbit hole. After these past few years of learning, upgrading and tweaking, my system sounds really good-especially for a non-dedicated untreated room. And the video ain't bad neither. So I've accomplished my objective in that now listening to music and watching movies is wonderfully rewarding-I look forward to it daily to relax, wind down and appreciate some of my favorite art.

I have already gone pretty far out the asymptotic curve of diminishing returns in better SQ per $ spent buying gear. I'm pretty sure that theremaining significant SQ improvements will require formal, properly done acoustic room treatments. And I just can't commit to the work it will take to improve SQ at this point.


Of course I appreciate and respect those who get so much enjoyment from that aspect of the hobby as well. To Keith, I say carry on, old chap. smile.gif

+1 on all of that. There's only so many hours I have in a week to do tweak the HT...not just because of work, but due to real life, non-hermit things biggrin.gif. And I occasionally like to watch HBO and BluRays, above and beyond AVS posting (which I may well do more of lately than praticing what I preach about my system LOL). rolleyes.gif

If it weren't for the more dedicated among us, this thread would be pretty dormant, plus there'd be a much quieter, if not DOA 'simplified REW' thread. Keep up the good work, you folks that enjoy inhabiting the deepest depths of the rabbit hole! cool.gif
Edited by sdrucker - 3/21/13 at 5:17pm
post #4093 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddingle View Post

We tried the problem 80.3 back at our office and we were able to complete the Audyssey pro calibration on a five channel system without any problems. We are still not sure what the problem is,but it would almost have be to network related. Perhaps the IP address has something to do with it? Nick is going to experiment over the weekend at home with a couple of different routers and IP addresses. Hopefully we can gain some insight into what is going on.

It will be interesting to see what comes of it.
post #4094 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

They'd have to have a Pro kit of course - but I take your point. I still think it's a tad unreasonable though to have to buy a fresh licence just because i have bought a new AVP. I can't really complain I guess - as SoM and Jerry have said, I knew this when I 'joined the club'.  I think there must be a 'better way'. 

I agree with you but the business model seems to have been built with the expectation that Pro would, in fact, be sold primarily to..........pros.  If that was the case, the license would stay with the particular device and the owner could call on a different "pro" for calibration at a later date without incurring another license fee.  That seems reasonable but not if the majority of purchasers are end-users as it seems to have turned out.

 

Yes, good point.

post #4095 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

...I am not sure about MRC. Does XT32 apply MRC? If not, then I can't say I noticed any problem with the lack of it before I had Pro. MRC makes an assumption about your speaker crossovers that may or may not be correct. When the BBC invented it decades ago, they has a very specific speaker in mind...
Yes of course it does. Who are you and what have you done with Keith? biggrin.gif
Pro allows for a whole lot of customization of this tweak should you so desire
Quote:
The Curve Editor is Audyssey telling us that Pro does not do a perfect job and may need after-calibration tweaking.
Perhaps. But it certainly does allow for tweaking regardless of whether the EQ i s "perfect" or not. Individual customization-including to one's preference-is something many want out of Audyssey. For $700 they have it, along with the many other useful features.

IMO XT32 & Pro is the best value in sophisticated RC DSP.

 

:)  I'm not sure I have ever even thought about the MRC in XT32 before!  What customisation do you mean?  You can turn MRC on or off in Pro and that's about it - unless you mean you can use the Curve Editor to tweak around with it. But that is going to be very hit and miss with no ability to adjust Q in the Curve Editor.  That is the main thing about TCE that makes it of limited use I think, plus the restriction to +/- 3dB of boost or cut. 

 

I agree with you that XT32+Pro is the best value for automated systems as some of the others are very expensive indeed. Whether it is the best value for room correction per se is open to debate I think, given how inexpensive some of the PEQs are, and REW is free of course. 

post #4096 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Yes of course it does. Who are you and what have you done with Keith? biggrin.gif
Pro allows for a whole lot of customization of this tweak should you so desire
Perhaps. But it certainly does allow for tweaking regardless of whether the EQ i s "perfect" or not. Individual customization-including to one's preference-is something many want out of Audyssey. For $700 they have it, along with the many other useful features.

IMO XT32 & Pro is the best value in sophisticated RC DSP.

Keith picked up a Behringer Feedback Destroyer about two weeks ago, and is now in love with the idea of PEQ - at least experimentally - to improve his room, above and beyond where he currently is. See the REW thread for more details.....it's a few days before the Bob Dylan concert reviews we were exchanging... tongue.gif

I actually agree with you SOM - it's an incredible value if you're not putting in the steep, collective learning curve for usage of REW (or for the less determined, OmniMic), the string test to ID reflections and place room treatments, PEQ, and other fripperies which lead to 'audio nirvana' by themselves cool.gif
 

 

 

All good points Stuart. I'm not so much 'in love' with the idea of PEQ (in fact I hate it just for existing really, as it is a new branch off the rabbit hole that seemingly must be explored) but I do like the flexibility it might give me to improve on what XT32+Pro has so far done which, don't get me wrong, is formidable. In fact I am sure PEQ can make an improvement - the question really is whether I will have the time, patience or ability to use it properly. I am in good company - on the SubM thread Mark Seaton (and Craig John) are both advocates of using PEQ as the 'final refinement' step, in some circumstances, for an Audyssey-calibrated system and both those dudes know something about bass optimisation! 

 

 

 

Quote:
Not that we can't improve on Audyssey. The question is how much is 'real' and how much is acute graphitis nervosa. That's a YMMV call. I'm personally going to look at plan A, which is the Curve Editor and playing more conclusively with REW (i.e. the distance tweak, given the 'best practices' we're using there), and max that out before I jump into the PEQ rabbit hole. Not that it's not tempting, but it's a marathon, not a sprint, to do right. Plus to go the way I'd want to go, I'd have to start thinking about adjusting jumpers and testing voltages on unbalanced inputs, or the joys of Phoenix connections.

 

I agree entirely. I have already gone as far as I can with 'Plan A'. I have bought two of the best subs in the world, have used the best (albeit limited) placement options in my room, heavily treated the room in conjunction with measuring, string and professional advice from GIK Acoustics, experimented with the Curve Editor, used REW and the sub distance tweak to optimise the XO. Having done all that, I measure and discover there is still room for improvement. Audyssey and the measures above have got me as far as I can go, and they have all done very well. But there is room for improvement. Everything I have read tells me I have done these things in the right sequence and that the final step is some further adjustment via PEQ. It may be graphitis nervosa rearing its head again - we shall have to see. I may not have the skill or patience to seek out any potential benefits from this last refinement.

 

I am also sure that someone with the proper skills could use the measures I mention above, but without Audyssey, relying entirely on PEQ, and get a superb result. It is just a lot more work and requires a substantial amount of knowledge and skill. All the many pro sound studios I have spent so long in as part of my professional life were incredibly well optimised - and they would never even have heard of Audyssey I am sure!  I am not bashing Audyssey - far from it - I think it is a terrific, automated tool and I would never be without XT32 or similar. I just think I have reached the limits of its effectiveness now and REW shows me there is still potential room for improvement. PEQ is the final step on this journey that's all.

 

Quote:
Somewhere on this thread there's a post from last year, where after much experimentation with phase adjustments and iterative reruns of Audyssey Pro, Mr. Barnes concluded that his room was "as good as it's going to be". And that was before the Seaton Submersives replaced his old subs, and he dove more fully into the room treatments and the Behringer. How things change....

LOL. Define 'done' :)

post #4097 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

I agree with you but the business model seems to have been built with the expectation that Pro would, in fact, be sold primarily to..........pros.  If that was the case, the license would stay with the particular device and the owner could call on a different "pro" for calibration at a later date without incurring another license fee.  That seems reasonable but not if the majority of purchasers are end-users as it seems to have turned out.

Apparently Audyssey never bargained for the Pro kit being an end-user product more than one for CIs. They still have the paradigm that consumer usage of Pro is "off-label". What's funny is that at least some of us 'installers' have found Audyssey more limited than the CI folks that were the original target, if "Ask Audyssey" or Audyssey Tech Talk is any indication. Of course, their CI users may only work through Luke and not post on Internet forums smile.gif.

 

The CI guys are not going to be obsessives like us either IMO. They are doing a paid job and will look at the time it takes vs the $$$ return they can get. Given that it could take days to optimise a room using manual methods, vs a couple of hours with Pro, you can see the appeal of an automated system. The market for a two-hour Pro cal is going to be considerably larger than the market for a two-day manual cal. Given the sizeable improvement a Pro cal can make I am sure that the vast majority of CI customers are very happy. And they get a nice 'after' graph to confirm it too ;)  Don't mention predicted response and that it's smoothed to hell... :)

post #4098 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

... the steep, collective learning curve for usage of REW (or for the less determined, OmniMIc), the string test to ID reflections and place room treatments, PEQ, and other fripperies...
Exactly. The steep learning curve and sheer amount of time and work involved is what's kept me from diving further down the technical HT rabbit hole. After these past few years of learning, upgrading and tweaking, my system sounds really good-especially for a non-dedicated untreated room. And the video ain't bad neither. So I've accomplished my objective in that now listening to music and watching movies is wonderfully rewarding-I look forward to it daily to relax, wind down and appreciate some of my favorite art.

I have already gone pretty far out the asymptotic curve of diminishing returns in better SQ per $ spent buying gear. I'm pretty sure that theremaining significant SQ improvements will require formal, properly done acoustic room treatments. And I just can't commit to the work it will take to improve SQ at this point.


Of course I appreciate and respect those who get so much enjoyment from that aspect of the hobby as well. To Keith, I say carry on, old chap. smile.gif

 

I am with you entirely SoM. My hobby isn't acoustics, it's movies. I sort of got dragged into the rabbit hole unwittingly*. But having now worked through the steep learning curve you mention, and already invested the time, it seems I can’t stop until I have exhausted this new possibility of PEQ. The law of diminishing returns will surely apply. 

 

I dont think, in my case, it would be right to say I get 'enjoyment' from this aspect of the hobby. It's a sort of necessary evil to me. I really do not enjoy getting the mic out and measuring and so on. But I know that it has paid off for me in the past. It's a bit like a dental exam - not really enjoyable but you know it's worthwhile and can lead to a better result so you go ahead with it.  The SQ of a good movie is very rewarding to me (I am more critical of sound than video, although I bought a colorimeter and Calman 5 and learned how to use them and my screen is calibrated to the best result of which it is capable).  Like you, I find it a daily way to wind down and relax and enjoy some of my favourite art.

 

*I came onto AVS to ask a question in the Audyssey thread about how to connect dual subs, and seem to have been here ever since. :)

post #4099 of 5258
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

smile.gif  I'm not sure I have ever even thought about the MRC in XT32 before!  What customisation do you mean?  You can turn MRC on or off in Pro and that's about it - unless you mean you can use the Curve Editor to tweak around with it. But that is going to be very hit and miss with no ability to adjust Q in the Curve Editor.  That is the main thing about TCE that makes it of limited use I think, plus the restriction to +/- 3dB of boost or cut...
Yes, that's what I meant. And IIRC at least one person has posted about creating a custom MRC by turning it off and using curve editor to make their own. I've thought about it but haven't had the time or motivation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

...I agree with you that XT32+Pro is the best value for automated systems as some of the others are very expensive indeed. Whether it is the best value for room correction per se is open to debate I think, given how inexpensive some of the PEQs are, and REW is free of course.
I think so as my calculation has factored in that time is money. I've gotten impressive results with AudysseyXT32+Pro with AVR, kit and license in toto under $2K. The learning curve was mild and time invested minimal.

Not everyone has retired to their English coutryside estate, my good man. biggrin.gif
post #4100 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

smile.gif  I'm not sure I have ever even thought about the MRC in XT32 before!  What customisation do you mean?  You can turn MRC on or off in Pro and that's about it - unless you mean you can use the Curve Editor to tweak around with it. But that is going to be very hit and miss with no ability to adjust Q in the Curve Editor.  That is the main thing about TCE that makes it of limited use I think, plus the restriction to +/- 3dB of boost or cut...
Yes, that's what I meant. And IIRC at least one person has posted about creating a custom MRC by turning it off and using curve editor to make their own. I've thought about it but haven't had the time or motivation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

...I agree with you that XT32+Pro is the best value for automated systems as some of the others are very expensive indeed. Whether it is the best value for room correction per se is open to debate I think, given how inexpensive some of the PEQs are, and REW is free of course.
I think so as my calculation has factored in that time is money. I've gotten impressive results with AudysseyXT32+Pro with AVR, kit and license in toto under $2K. The learning curve was mild and time invested minimal.

Not everyone has retired to their English coutryside estate, my good man. biggrin.gif

 

LOL!  Ah yes, if you factor in 'time is money' then my 'alternative' costs about $500,000 :)

 

This is what makes Audyssey so clever and so popular of course - more or less anyone can buy an Audyssey-equipped AVR (the Onkyo 818 offers XT32 and has been seen in the wild for $700), read a few simple instructions and get a pretty good result, right out of the box. When I first heard what Audyssey could for my sound in my room, I was flabbergasted. Or 'gobsmacked' as we say here in Blighty.

 

Mind you, HST, there are 60,000+ posts in the Audyssey thread, so maybe it isn't so simple after all :) 

post #4101 of 5258

Just to show what can be achieved with some skill and a little PEQ, this article (and indeed the entire website of this guy) is worth looking at for a moment:

 

http://redspade-audio.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/subwoofer-integration-worked-example-1.html

 

The article gives all the detail, but here is the conclusion:

 

 

 

The green line is his main speakers (TLs as he refers to them).  The interesting part is the final EQd result - the blue line. I don't think anyone can be in any doubt that this is a far better result than the black line. Now this isn't a comparison with Audyssey in any way - just an example of what can be achieved with PEQ.

post #4102 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Just to show what can be achieved with some skill and a little PEQ, this article (and indeed the entire website of this guy) is worth looking at for a moment:

http://redspade-audio.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/subwoofer-integration-worked-example-1.html

The article gives all the detail, but here is the conclusion:





The green line is his main speakers (TLs as he refers to them).  The interesting part is the final EQd result - the blue line. I don't think anyone can be in any doubt that this is a far better result than the black line. Now this isn't a comparison with Audyssey in any way - just an example of what can be achieved with PEQ.

It looks awfully smooth to me.....but I see that he used 1/3 smoothing for that final blue line with the PEQ. No wonder it looks so good LOL...what resolution are the other lines (sub, his TL, combined) at - no smoothing?

Sorry, but IMO it's a little disingenous for him to see this as an accomplishment and then for him to say that he showed it that way "to avoid the dips being too bad". Plus he raised the level "for clarity". Who's to say that his combined plot at 1/3 smoothing before PEQ wouldn't look nearly good, +/- 3 db, without raising the level (or having the same offset, anyway)? I means, it's better, but how much better at the same resolution?

Hey, we do things the hard way here < 200 Hz: no smoothing for our comparisons. Next!

(just kidding, Keith, but I think his presentation has too much spin; if this were a journal article, the reviewers wouldn't have let that final graph slide)
Edited by sdrucker - 3/22/13 at 12:16pm
post #4103 of 5258

Yes, smoothing the final result does produce a flat response.  Heck, at 1/3 smoothing, my response looks darn near perfect as well.  biggrin.gif

post #4104 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Just to show what can be achieved with some skill and a little PEQ, this article (and indeed the entire website of this guy) is worth looking at for a moment:

http://redspade-audio.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/subwoofer-integration-worked-example-1.html

The article gives all the detail, but here is the conclusion:





The green line is his main speakers (TLs as he refers to them).  The interesting part is the final EQd result - the blue line. I don't think anyone can be in any doubt that this is a far better result than the black line. Now this isn't a comparison with Audyssey in any way - just an example of what can be achieved with PEQ.

It looks awfully smooth to me.....but I see that he used 1/3 smoothing for that final blue line with the PEQ. No wonder it looks so good LOL...what resolution are the other lines (sub, his TL, combined) at - no smoothing?

Sorry, but IMO it's a little disingenous for him to see this as an accomplishment and then for him to say that he showed it that way "to avoid the dips being too bad". Plus he raised the level "for clarity". Who's to say that his combined plot at 1/3 smoothing before PEQ wouldn't look nearly good, +/- 3 db, without raising the level (or having the same offset, anyway)? I means, it's better, but how much better at the same resolution?

Hey, we do things the hard way here < 200 Hz: no smoothing for our comparisons. Next!

(just kidding, Keith, but I think his presentation has too much spin; if this were a journal article, the reviewers wouldn't have let that final graph slide)

 

It is with 1/3rd smoothing. It would have been better of he had uses the same smoothing for all channels. But I believe him - it looks as if it would be better even with the smoothing taken into account, If you read the site, not just that one article but the bass integration article I posted a link to before, it's fairly clear he knows his stuff.

post #4105 of 5258

Here is 1/3 smoothing WITHOUT any PEQ.  Pretty flat....

 

post #4106 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Yes, smoothing the final result does produce a flat response.  Heck, at 1/3 smoothing, my response looks darn near perfect as well.  biggrin.gif

 

By way of comparison here's a result of my own - I deliberately picked the worst graph I could find:

 

The unsmoothed, un-PEQ'd response:

 

 

 

As above with some PEQ:

 

 

 

As above with 1/3rd smoothing.

 

 

 

The bit he didn't show us is the middle graph. But the flatter response is plain to see. 

post #4107 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Here is 1/3 smoothing WITHOUT any PEQ.  Pretty flat....

 

 

I think that shows, Jerry, that you don't need any additional PEQ. From a FR POV, you are done!

post #4108 of 5258

Here's my current response, 1/3rd smoothing. The step boost above 60Hz is desired (my house curve). hey - maybe I am done too! :)

 

 

post #4109 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I think that shows, Jerry, that you don't need any additional PEQ. From a FR POV, you are done!

Wait til you see my 1/3 smoothing L/R+subs response.....just wait til I can log into my home PC....
post #4110 of 5258

Now someone needs to market a set of 1/3 octave smoothing earplugs.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread (FAQ in post #1)