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 164

post #4891 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Keith,those are pretty points however the word "easy" does NOT apply to room tx/REW,  but IMO it does apply to using Pro.

I especially agree that XT32 is a great bargain, as it is "free" and available in many AVPs, some AVRs avail street well below $1K.  Pro is less of a bargain as most things as we move up the audiophile chain.  BTW you keep forgetting Pro is $150 license and $550 kit NIB = $700. wink.gif

My experience with both XT and XT32 is that Pro better integrated the surrounds with LCR, and the mains with the sub noticeably better than the consumer version by itself. Yes, and to a stunning degree, XT32 (consumer) had the same improvement over consumer XT. But Pro-ing XT32 still brought more of the same improvement. For me, Audyssey came to my theater after I had treatments, so I never had the eureka moment from treatments.

That is my experience and I have trouble understanding how that same experience would not be shared by anyone else traveling the same path.

Jeff
post #4892 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Keith,those are pretty points however the word "easy" does NOT apply to room tx/REW,  but IMO it does apply to using Pro.

I especially agree that XT32 is a great bargain, as it is "free" and available in many AVPs, some AVRs avail street well below $1K.  Pro is less of a bargain as most things as we move up the audiophile chain.  BTW you keep forgetting Pro is $150 license and $550 kit NIB = $700. wink.gif
+1 the value of the pro kit is the ease of use compared to REW & room treatments are just ugly in a multi purpose room and will never happen for me (as long as i am married)
post #4893 of 5250
Thread Starter 
oops just noticed my typo when you quoted me
I meant to type that Keith had made pretty good points
post #4894 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by HTPCat View Post



+1 the value of the pro kit is the ease of use compared to REW & room treatments are just ugly in a multi purpose room and will never happen for me (as long as i am married)

 

I'm not sure what you are saying.

 

Most of us here have an objective of getting the best sound as possible in our listening environments.  Each of us has one or more constraints, be it WAF, a smallish room, a leased condo, a small budget, etc. that forces us to make compromises.  Our collective experience seems to suggest that there is an order of activities on the path towards improvement, listed in the following order, most important to least important:

 

- Optimum room layout and equipment placement (facilitated by measuring equipment)

- Selective room treatments (also facilitated by measuring equipment)

- Use of room correction technology (MultEQ XT is good, MultEQ XT32 is better)

- Results fine-tuning (facilitated by measuring equipment, and in some cases, the configurability of the Pro kit)

 

Room layout and room treatments are subject to WAF, of course, but there are solutions available that could be acceptable.  However, one cannot skip the first two steps on the list and expect to achieve the goal of an excellent-sounding listening room with room correction alone.  And one cannot expect very good results at all by not being able to measure progress.

 

So saying that the value of the Pro kit is that it gets you to good sound easier than using REW or room treatments is missing the point.

post #4895 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I'm not sure what you are saying.

Most of us here have an objective of getting the best sound as possible in our listening environments.  Each of us has one or more constraints, be it WAF, a smallish room, a leased condo, a small budget, etc. that forces us to make compromises.  Our collective experience seems to suggest that there is an order of activities on the path towards improvement, listed in the following order, most important to least important:

- Optimum room layout and equipment placement (facilitated by measuring equipment)
- Selective room treatments (also facilitated by measuring equipment)
- Use of room correction technology (MultEQ XT is good, MultEQ XT32 is better)
- Results fine-tuning (facilitated by measuring equipment, and in some cases, the configurability of the Pro kit)

Room layout and room treatments are subject to WAF, of course, but there are solutions available that could be acceptable.  However, one cannot skip the first two steps on the list and expect to achieve the goal of an excellent-sounding listening room with room correction alone.  And one cannot expect very good results at all by not being able to measure progress.

So saying that the value of the Pro kit is that it gets you to good sound easier than using REW or room treatments is missing the point.

I'm one of those people with WAF and an urban condo location, as well as XT32 with a Pro Kit, and I couldn't agree more with Jerry. And nary a treatment, other than wall to wall carpeting in our HT/living room, since I have limited placement options for them and it's a multipurpose family room for us. It also has some baby stuff due to our three-month-old test tone fan smile.gif. But REW and the UMM-6 mic are probably the most essential tools in my room correction. I couldn't be happy without some automated room correction, but correcting my room would be wholly inadequate without measuring tools.

Why? Because no REQ in the world (other than possibly the $12K+ professional units with Trinnov that have fully featured 3D Remapping) offers the flexibility that complete control over room placement and treatments with measuring offers. And they cannot make all your decisions for you. They can only offer a shortcut to room "nirvana" on their own.

The problem with Audyssey - with and without Pro - is that you may 'think' the room has been corrected. But without measuring the impact of different placement and alternate crossovers, you're relying on crude graphs (even Pro's after graph is 1/3 octave smoothing) that only look at one speaker at a time, with no speaker/sub interactions. Further, these are predicted responses, not actual observed in your room. And you do not get more than frequency response charts. You could have your entire sub performance ring into a single note and without measuring with a waterfall or spectrogram, be reliant on faulty auditory memory or worse, blind faith, that your REQ has solved the problem because a Pro graph looks flat. No matter how many Seaton Submersives or how powerful your amp may be.

Thanks to measuring, I've integrated powered speakers with subs more efficiently, restored 'bass slam', better placed my center channel to enhance dialog, and added ambience to my room with surrounds, which compared to the real pros like AJ, Keith or some guys on the REW thread, is the tip of the iceberg. I couldn't have done it as well without Audyssey Pro (and I personally think the Target Curve Editor is overly maligned by some, Keith smile.gif considering how limited the alternatives are for mains with Audyssey), but absolutely not with any flavor of Audyssey at the end of the day to my satisfaction without REW or OmniMic. In my view, using REQ with room correction is like operating with one eye closed, and one hand holding an iPhone smile.gif.

Besides, this Is A/V Science, not the 'faith in room correction' forum IMO. YMMV of course, but after almost two years as a 'serious' Audyssey user/audiophool, my POV.

On the other hand, there's something to be said for liking what we here and avoiding temptation of measuring as a vocation rater than a hobby....biggrin.gif
Edited by sdrucker - 12/27/13 at 12:49pm
post #4896 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

oops just noticed my typo when you quoted me
I meant to type that Keith had made pretty good points

Lol I didn't think you were complimenting Keith on his pretty points .... not that there'd be anything wrong with that. wink.gif
post #4897 of 5250
Thread Starter 

^ :D

I just wanted to be clear that it was a typo especially as "pretty" can be used sarcastically.

There have been several considered posts outlining individual positions on SQ strategy. 

I may tease Keith but I surely respect him and the other members who have taken the time and trouble to learn how to use measurements to improve SQ outcomes and post about it.  

 

 

 

 

 

post #4898 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Keith,those are pretty points however the word "easy" does NOT apply to room tx/REW,  but IMO it does apply to using Pro.

I especially agree that XT32 is a great bargain, as it is "free" and available in many AVPs, some AVRs avail street well below $1K.  Pro is less of a bargain as most things as we move up the audiophile chain.  BTW you keep forgetting Pro is $150 license and $550 kit NIB = $700. wink.gif

My experience with both XT and XT32 is that Pro better integrated the surrounds with LCR, and the mains with the sub noticeably better than the consumer version by itself. Yes, and to a stunning degree, XT32 (consumer) had the same improvement over consumer XT. But Pro-ing XT32 still brought more of the same improvement. For me, Audyssey came to my theater after I had treatments, so I never had the eureka moment from treatments.

That is my experience and I have trouble understanding how that same experience would not be shared by anyone else traveling the same path.

Jeff

 

I don't see anyone disagreeing that Pro adds something to the underlying XT32. My question mark over Pro relates the price and whether it gives good value for money. Personally, I am not convinced that it does. IMO, $700 spent on REW, a calibrated mic and subsequent room treatments gives significantly better value and is likely to give significantly better SQ too. 

 

When I added Pro to my system, I too heard similar improvements to the ones you describe - but this was before I had learned to use REW and before I had any treatments in place. At the time when I was looking into Pro, the general consensus was that Pro made 'incremental improvements', not, for example, the substantial improvements that XT32 makes over 'lesser' versions of MultEQ.  Incremental improvements. You too said the same IIRC.  So the question, for me, is simply: are these 'incremental improvements' worth $700. My answer to my own question is, maybe if you have an untreated room, and no, if you are considering spending the same money on REW+mic+treatments. The latter will give much better bang for the buck, IMO, than Pro does. That is all I've ever said in this recent discussion and I hope it is not being construed as my saying that Pro is worthless.

post #4899 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by HTPCat View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Keith,those are pretty points however the word "easy" does NOT apply to room tx/REW,  but IMO it does apply to using Pro.

I especially agree that XT32 is a great bargain, as it is "free" and available in many AVPs, some AVRs avail street well below $1K.  Pro is less of a bargain as most things as we move up the audiophile chain.  BTW you keep forgetting Pro is $150 license and $550 kit NIB = $700. wink.gif
+1 the value of the pro kit is the ease of use compared to REW & room treatments are just ugly in a multi purpose room and will never happen for me (as long as i am married)

 

Nobody would disagree with that I think. It does take some effort to learn to use REW. And room treatments are not acceptable for many. Of course, that doesn't negate the impact that treatments have on SQ.  Properly designed and used acoustic treatments will totally blow away anything that Pro can do.  Anyone who thinks that a Pro calibration will result in SQ as good as that in a properly treated room is just wrong - not that there are any who believe that in this thread AFAIK of course.

post #4900 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post
 

Keith,those are pretty points however the word "easy" does NOT apply to room tx/REW,  but IMO it does apply to using Pro.

 

I especially agree that XT32 is a great bargain, as it is "free" and available in many AVPs, some AVRs avail street well below $1K.  Pro is less of a bargain as most things as we move up the audiophile chain.  BTW you keep forgetting Pro is $150 license and $550 kit NIB = $700. ;)

 

Hehe - sorry. It was way more than that for me of course, as I had to pay carriage to the UK and then import taxes. And then I had to pay carriage back to the US for the preamp because Audyssey didn’t include a power supply with my ("triple-checked") kit and the one I used blew the preamp up. And then I had to pay carriage back to the UK for the repaired preamp and a second lot of import tax on the returned preamp because Audyssey had declared it as a new item and not a repaired unit. (Why they didn’t just send me a new preamp remains a mystery). So all in all my Kit cost me about $1,000. But that still doesn't explain why I keep on saying it costs $750 LOL!. I will try harder!

post #4901 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HTPCat View Post



+1 the value of the pro kit is the ease of use compared to REW & room treatments are just ugly in a multi purpose room and will never happen for me (as long as i am married)

 

I'm not sure what you are saying.

 

Most of us here have an objective of getting the best sound as possible in our listening environments.  Each of us has one or more constraints, be it WAF, a smallish room, a leased condo, a small budget, etc. that forces us to make compromises.  Our collective experience seems to suggest that there is an order of activities on the path towards improvement, listed in the following order, most important to least important:

 

- Optimum room layout and equipment placement (facilitated by measuring equipment)

- Selective room treatments (also facilitated by measuring equipment)

- Use of room correction technology (MultEQ XT is good, MultEQ XT32 is better)

- Results fine-tuning (facilitated by measuring equipment, and in some cases, the configurability of the Pro kit)

 

Room layout and room treatments are subject to WAF, of course, but there are solutions available that could be acceptable.  However, one cannot skip the first two steps on the list and expect to achieve the goal of an excellent-sounding listening room with room correction alone.  And one cannot expect very good results at all by not being able to measure progress.

 

So saying that the value of the Pro kit is that it gets you to good sound easier than using REW or room treatments is missing the point.

 

Yes, 100% right, Jerry. I just made the same point, before seeing your post, but made it far less eloquently than you did above.

 

Anyone thinking that Pro can be used instead of measuring and treating the room, and that the resulting SQ will bear any comparison, is way, way off the mark.

post #4902 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I'm not sure what you are saying.

Most of us here have an objective of getting the best sound as possible in our listening environments.  Each of us has one or more constraints, be it WAF, a smallish room, a leased condo, a small budget, etc. that forces us to make compromises.  Our collective experience seems to suggest that there is an order of activities on the path towards improvement, listed in the following order, most important to least important:

- Optimum room layout and equipment placement (facilitated by measuring equipment)
- Selective room treatments (also facilitated by measuring equipment)
- Use of room correction technology (MultEQ XT is good, MultEQ XT32 is better)
- Results fine-tuning (facilitated by measuring equipment, and in some cases, the configurability of the Pro kit)

Room layout and room treatments are subject to WAF, of course, but there are solutions available that could be acceptable.  However, one cannot skip the first two steps on the list and expect to achieve the goal of an excellent-sounding listening room with room correction alone.  And one cannot expect very good results at all by not being able to measure progress.

So saying that the value of the Pro kit is that it gets you to good sound easier than using REW or room treatments is missing the point.

I'm one of those people with WAF and a leased condo, as well as XT32 with a Pro Kit, and I couldn't agree more with Jerry. And nary a treatment, other than wall to wall carpeting in our HT/living room, since I have limited placement options for them and it's a multipurpose family room for us. It also has some baby stuff due to our three-month-old test tone fan smile.gif. But REW and the UMM-6 mic are probably the most essential tools in my room correction. I couldn't be happy without some automated room correction, but correcting my room would be wholly inadequate without measuring tools.

Why? Because no REQ in the world (other than possibly the $12K+ professional units with Trinnov that have fully featured 3D Remapping) offers the flexibility that complete control over room placement and treatments with measuring offers. And they cannot make all your decisions for you. They can only offer a shortcut to room "nirvana" on their own.

The problem with Audyssey - with and without Pro - is that you may 'think' the room has been corrected. But without measuring the impact of different placement and alternate crossovers, you're relying in crude graphs (even Pro's after graph is 1/3 octave smoothing) that only look at one speaker at a time, with no speaker/sub interactions. Further, these are predicted responses, not actual observed in your room. And you do not get more than frequency response charts. You could have your entire sub performance ring into a single note and without measuring with a waterfall or spectrogram, be reliant on faulty auditory memory or worse, blind faith, that your REQ has solved the problem because a Pro graph looks flat. No matter how many Seaton Submersives or how powerful your amp may be.

Thanks to measuring, I've integrated powered speakers with subs more efficiently, restored 'bass slam', better placed my center channel to enhance dialog, and added ambience to my room with surrounds, which compared to the real pros like AJ, Keith or some guys on the REW thread, is the tip of the iceberg. I couldn't have done it as well without Audyssey Pro (and I personally think the Target Curve Editor is overly maligned by some, Keith smile.gif considering how limited the alternatives are for mains with Audyssey), but absolutely not with any flavor of Audyssey at the end of the day to my satisfaction without REW or OmniMic. In my view, using REQ with room correction is like operating with one eye closed, and one hand holding an iPhone smile.gif.

Besides, this Is A/V Science, not the 'faith in room correction' forum IMO. YMMV of course, but after almost two years as a 'serious' Audyssey user/audiophool, my POV.

On the other hand, there's something to be said for liking what we here and avoiding temptation of measuring as a vocation rater than a hobby....biggrin.gif

 

I think that is a fabulous post, Stuart. Many people in your position - rented condo, limited placement options, no possibility of room treatments etc - would have just given up entirely or run room EQ and said "my work here is done'. But you have persevered, worried the problems like a terrier with a bone, measured, moved, tweaked, measured, adjusted, etc etc etc until you have achieved some really good results and you have proved the benefits of your efforts in the REW thread. And, of course, your journey towards sonic nirvana continues...

 

In my case, many people faced with a room 11 feet square would also have given up I think. Yet in that room I have a full 7.2 system with dual Seaton Submersives, 22 acoustic panels, two big reclining chairs and a PJ throwing a 93 inch image which, from the seating distance of 9 feet, is huge. The SQ is also fabulous, and my own graphs, posted here and in the REW thread, bear witness to that I think.

 

The point here is not some self-congratulatory onanism but to demonstrate that the limitations and compromises we almost ALL have to make are not the end of the line wrt to SQ and that with effort and dedication amazing results can be achieved.

 

Can they be achieved by room EQ (of any sort) alone?  The answer has to be a resounding NO. Pro is not an alternative to room treatments etc, it is an addition. And its place in the pecking order comes exactly where Jerry says.

post #4903 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post
 

^ :D

I just wanted to be clear that it was a typo especially as "pretty" can be used sarcastically.

There have been several considered posts outlining individual positions on SQ strategy. 

I may tease Keith but I surely respect him and the other members who have taken the time and trouble to learn how to use measurements to improve SQ outcomes and post about it.  

 

And I respect those who have achieved much despite not having the luxury of a dedicated room in which they can do pretty much anything they please without regard to WAF etc. I know you fall into the non-dedicated room category, SoM, and I am equally sure you have a pretty good setup there and have achieved it without compromising the really, really nice aesthetics of your comfortable room. 

 

I am happy to be considered as the spectre at the feast in this thread, with my curmudgeonly grumblings about Pro and the value it represents (or doesn’t). But all I am saying is that if one has XT32, in my opinion, Pro doesn't represent great value at $700. That is not to say it doesn't add anything of course. Those who have dedicated rooms or lack of WAF etc would be better following Jerry's 'pecking order' in his recent post, where he places Pro last on the priority list. Those who do not have dedicated rooms etc should place room EQ high on their list (XT32 if possible) and then Pro if they feel it brings sufficient benefits for an additional $700. 

 

Another way to look at it is this: if someone without a dedicated room has an XT unit, would they be better off spending $700 to upgrade to an XT32 unit, or better off spending $700 to add Pro to their existing kit. I will stick my neck out here and say that IMO there is no doubt at all, whatsoever, in the least, that they would be better off spending their $700 on upgrading to an XT32 unit. (I am assuming that they would sell their XT unit for at least $300 here - and then buy the Denon X4000).

post #4904 of 5250
I think we, including me, are talking past each other in a way. Stuart's circumstances - rented condo, limited placement options, no possibility of room treatments etc - did not deter him from diving in to understand his room more, learn what (little?) more could be done and then doing it. Bravo! But the next person with the same circumstances, but not motivated to "dive in" will be happy with what XT32 brings and might be incrementally happier with Pro as well when they can tweak the system. It is not a poor decision, it is just a different one.

To address another point made above, I don't rely on crude graphs that only look at one speaker at a time with no speaker/sub interactions yadda yadda yadda. I rely on my EARS listening to music or watching movies. It is not a poor decision, it is just a different one.

Value? That is all relative. I know people who have paid more for one speaker than I did for all of my speakers. And I am certain that I paid more for my speaker system than some did for the entire theater. If I annoy people on this thread by constantly harping on the "value" of the Pro Kit, I can tell you that others annoy me by harping on the lack of value. smile.gif

Very few of us, me included, are wording/phrasing our posts to allow for others facing the same circumstances to logically arrive at a different decision ... not a poor decision, just a different one.

I would prefer, when someone new comes to the thread looking for guidance, that we all relate our experiences in such a way that allows the new person to reach their own conclusion without being nudged, cajoled and even badgered into making the one I did, Stuart did, or the one Keith did.

Happy New Year everyone.

Jeff
post #4905 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I think we, including me, are talking past each other in a way. Stuart's circumstances - rented condo, limited placement options, no possibility of room treatments etc - did not deter him from diving in to understand his room more, learn what (little?) more could be done and then doing it. Bravo! But the next person with the same circumstances, but not motivated to "dive in" will be happy with what XT32 brings and might be incrementally happier with Pro as well when they can tweak the system. It is not a poor decision, it is just a different one.

One correction for the record- we actually own our condo (well, as much as anyone does with a 30 year mortgage). The "leased condo" was in reference to Jerry's OP. Should have clarified that originally haha....

There's some truth to what you say. I'd reached a point where thanks to AVS, my H/T learning curve was accelerating, and based on the advice of people I respected (ccotenj back when, Jerry, and a few others) I decided that the next step for me was picking up the OmniMic. Since I'd just gotten the Pro Kit, using both together seemed like a natural fit. One to have more REQ flexibility than XT32, the other to measure the results and iteratively help me improve what I could do with placement, crossovers, and the Target Curve Editor. Moving to REW was something I'd resisted at first, mostly because I felt that there was too much of a headlong rush toward blindly following an anti-REQ advocate of studio models and DIY acoustic treatments. But on my own terms, REW has proved an immense help toward educating me on how to continue improving my room. In my case, that meant adding a MiniDSP, and looking into alternate REQ (Trinnov) to satisfy my curiousity. It proved a better measurement tool kit for my needs than OmniMic due to the program's capabilities, but that's another subject.

Still, our circumstances aren't everyone's. We don't have a dedicated room, we have glass windows and an opening onto a dining room instead of left and right side walls, and we've sadly over the years put aesthetics, like maximizing the spatial feel of our living room to give our kid(s) room to play and just to enjoy the room, ahead of optimal MLP and sub placement. We've done as well as we can, and incrementally keep trying to do better. I actually feel I've been measuring to minimize the disadvantages of the room, rather than exhaustively chase "audio nirvana". But that's just me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Very few of us, me included, are wording/phrasing our posts to allow for others facing the same circumstances to logically arrive at a different decision ... not a poor decision, just a different one..

There's always a thin line between advocacy and badgering. That's why it's smart to include a "IMO" or "YMMV" judiciously. I'm well aware that I've went farther than some with measurement and equipment choices, and not nearly as far as certain others in treatments. But while one person may spend hours if not days creating DIY treatments, stuffing them with gubbins, painting the room black for better video quality, or adding fake walls to create a better acoustic environment, that's not all, or even many of us.
Edited by sdrucker - 12/27/13 at 11:32am
post #4906 of 5250
Thanks, Stuart. I am glad that my post is stirring the conversation pot.

Jeff
post #4907 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Thanks, Stuart. I am glad that my post is stirring the conversation pot.

Jeff

Sure. One thing is that while there's some newcomers looking for advice about the functionality of the Audyssey Pro kit, there's also more sophisticated users that have moved beyond what the kit can do and point out its limitations as a general purpose REQ/problem solving tool. A thread like this has to serve both audiences.

We also have to be careful not to let our own experiences and opinions becoming generalizations. YMMV, but use or non-use of the Target Curve Editor is a case in point, as are opinions about Audyssey as a company abandoning us, or less-than-pleasing results due to using XT vs. XT32 on the more general thread. OTOH, sometimes that kind of thing keeps the pot stirring. But note that it took measurement to confirm that XT was doing something different, and maybe even detrimental in many cases, to higher frequencies than the later-generation XT32.

YMMV, but I think that as Audyssey has become more of an IP/mobile apps-oriented company, and it's harder to find information about which receivers have what flavor of Audyssey or are Pro capable, we may well see adaptation of the Pro kit die out and hopefully NOT support for hardware issues. If we haven't already aside from the straggler level, that is. I don't know if Audyssey still promotes their kit to CIs at trade shows or not, though.
Edited by sdrucker - 12/27/13 at 12:52pm
post #4908 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I think we, including me, are talking past each other in a way. Stuart's circumstances - rented condo, limited placement options, no possibility of room treatments etc - did not deter him from diving in to understand his room more, learn what (little?) more could be done and then doing it. Bravo! But the next person with the same circumstances, but not motivated to "dive in" will be happy with what XT32 brings and might be incrementally happier with Pro as well when they can tweak the system. It is not a poor decision, it is just a different one.

To address another point made above, I don't rely on crude graphs that only look at one speaker at a time with no speaker/sub interactions yadda yadda yadda. I rely on my EARS listening to music or watching movies. It is not a poor decision, it is just a different one.

Value? That is all relative. I know people who have paid more for one speaker than I did for all of my speakers. And I am certain that I paid more for my speaker system than some did for the entire theater. If I annoy people on this thread by constantly harping on the "value" of the Pro Kit, I can tell you that others annoy me by harping on the lack of value. smile.gif

 

 

I don't quite follow your logic here, Jeff. You make the point three times that 'difference' is an equally valid position (which I agree entirely with) but then you become annoyed that someone has a different view to yours.  I find that oddly inconsistent. 

 

 

Quote:

 Very few of us, me included, are wording/phrasing our posts to allow for others facing the same circumstances to logically arrive at a different decision ... not a poor decision, just a different one.

I would prefer, when someone new comes to the thread looking for guidance, that we all relate our experiences in such a way that allows the new person to reach their own conclusion without being nudged, cajoled and even badgered into making the one I did, Stuart did, or the one Keith did.
 
I am sure I am not badgering anyone by expressing what I have made abundantly clear is my own personal POV - which is to question the value of Pro over and above XT32.  Indeed, it is my view that anyone new to the thread will be better served by having many different points of view and opinions set out before him.  My own opinion is entirely valid and it is to question the value of Pro. If, after questioning it, someone comes to the view that, for him, Pro represents excellent value, then that is entirely fine by me.  As I have learned more, I have come to question if $700 for the benefits of Pro over and above the (undoubted and substantial) benefits of XT32 represents good value. I am not trying to force that opinion on to anyone,but I have the absolute right to express it. I am sorry if it annoys you. For the record, your contrary opinion does not annoy me in the least :)
post #4909 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Very few of us, me included, are wording/phrasing our posts to allow for others facing the same circumstances to logically arrive at a different decision ... not a poor decision, just a different one..

There's always a thin line between advocacy and badgering. That's why it's smart to include a "IMO" or "YMMV" judiciously. I'm well aware that I've went farther than some with measurement and equipment choices, and not nearly as far as certain others in treatments.

 

I don't see any badgering. I see different, valid points of view. As for measuring, well that has huge value. I can't personally see the point of running room EQ and then stopping at that. Measuring lets us see what we have achieved and helps us do even better as part of an iterative process. To this end, ears are essentially useless. Sure they are good for listening and for evaluating what we have achieved, but nobody has ears that serve as good measuring tools, and nobody has ears which can pinpoint individual problems with the precision of measuring software and a good mic.

 

Quote:
 hours if not days creating DIY treatments,

 

That's me that is...

 

 

Quote:

 stuffing them with gubbins, 

 

 

That's me that is...

 

Quote:

painting the room black for better video quality, 

 

That's me that is...

 

Quote:

or adding fake walls to create a better acoustic environment, 

 

Ah - that isn’t me :)  It would be me though, if I had room :)

post #4910 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post
 
YMMV, but I think that as Audyssey has become more of an IP/mobile apps-oriented company, and it's harder to find information about which receivers have what flavor of Audyssey or are Pro capable, we may well see adaptation of the Pro kit die out and hopefully NOT support for hardware issues. If we haven't already aside from the straggler level, that is. I don't know if Audyssey still promotes their kit to CIs at trade shows or not, though.

 

Sadly I think Pro has reached the end of the line. It will not be improved and may not even continue to be sold IMO. We already know that Audyssey have effectively washed their hands of it by their decision not to fix known and acknowledged bugs in the software. Once a company acknowledges that their software is broken but says that it has no intention of fixing it, I think that sends a pretty clear message.

post #4911 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Sadly I think Pro has reached the end of the line. It will not be improved and may not even continue to be sold IMO. We already know that Audyssey have effectively washed their hands of it by their decision not to fix known and acknowledged bugs in the software. Once a company acknowledges that their software is broken but says that it has no intention of fixing it, I think that sends a pretty clear message.

We don't make Audyssey policy, but that wouldn't surprise me. At this point, as long as they keep auto-generating installer keys for Pro I'm happy, because the bugs are "liveable". If they stopped THAT I'd be seriously annoyed.

I don't expect much else because it's clear to me that XT32 as a AVR-based correction algorithm, as opposed to having bells and whistles like LFC or DSX 2, is a legacy product from Audyssey that's just the core technology used in their mass market Internet and headphone apps. And Pro is kind of like the Sub Equalizer, but cheap to not maintain except for adding new receivers. But still a darn good couple of products IMO, if frozen in place.

What would be hysterically ironic would be if two years from now, we had a contingent of former Audyssey users switching to Pioneers with a NextGen version of MCACC that EQ'd the subs. I don't know anything about that happening beyond wishful thinking, but it would figure, wouldn't it?
post #4912 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Sadly I think Pro has reached the end of the line. It will not be improved and may not even continue to be sold IMO. We already know that Audyssey have effectively washed their hands of it by their decision not to fix known and acknowledged bugs in the software. Once a company acknowledges that their software is broken but says that it has no intention of fixing it, I think that sends a pretty clear message.

We don't make Audyssey policy, but that wouldn't surprise me. At this point, as long as they keep auto-generating installer keys for Pro I'm happy, because the bugs are "liveable". If they stopped THAT I'd be seriously annoyed.

I don't expect much else because it's clear to me that XT32 as a AVR-based correction algorithm, as opposed to having bells and whistles like LFC or DSX 2, is a legacy product from Audyssey that's just the core technology used in their mass market Internet and headphone apps. And Pro is kind of like the Sub Equalizer, but cheap to not maintain except for adding new receivers. But still a darn good couple of products IMO, if frozen in place.

What would be hysterically ironic would be if two years from now, we had a contingent of former Audyssey users switching to Pioneers with a NextGen version of MCACC that EQ'd the subs. I don't know anything about that happening beyond wishful thinking, but it would figure, wouldn't it?

 

Yes, I am sure they will continue to generate keys. If they stop, then all our Kits become redundant on that day.  Agreed that the bugs are liveable-with. But I am still annoyed that Audyssey will take $700 off me and admit to bugs and refuse to fix them. Not good IMO. 

 

I too am interested in other room EQ solutions. Trinnov would be good if it could be had for a reasonable price in a decent AVR. I wonder if Pioneer will ever develop MCACC? Or Yamaha their YPAO?

post #4913 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yes, I am sure they will continue to generate keys. If they stop, then all our Kits become redundant on that day.  Agreed that the bugs are liveable-with. But I am still annoyed that Audyssey will take $700 off me and admit to bugs and refuse to fix them. Not good IMO. 

I too am interested in other room EQ solutions. Trinnov would be good if it could be had for a reasonable price in a decent AVR. I wonder if Pioneer will ever develop MCACC? Or Yamaha their YPAO?

Also ARC.. don't forget them.

I really don't think they'll stop generating keys, since it's an automated process. But they could save themselves some time and just give Pro users/installers keys that work until 2030 or something, then call it a day. That would actually make some sense..
post #4914 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I'm not sure what you are saying.

Most of us here have an objective of getting the best sound as possible in our listening environments.  Each of us has one or more constraints, be it WAF, a smallish room, a leased condo, a small budget, etc. that forces us to make compromises.  Our collective experience seems to suggest that there is an order of activities on the path towards improvement, listed in the following order, most important to least important:

- Optimum room layout and equipment placement (facilitated by measuring equipment)
- Selective room treatments (also facilitated by measuring equipment)
- Use of room correction technology (MultEQ XT is good, MultEQ XT32 is better)
- Results fine-tuning (facilitated by measuring equipment, and in some cases, the configurability of the Pro kit)

Room layout and room treatments are subject to WAF, of course, but there are solutions available that could be acceptable.  However, one cannot skip the first two steps on the list and expect to achieve the goal of an excellent-sounding listening room with room correction alone.  And one cannot expect very good results at all by not being able to measure progress.

So saying that the value of the Pro kit is that it gets you to good sound easier than using REW or room treatments is missing the point.
I do beleive the discussion was as to whether audyssey was worth the price or if one would be better served spending the money on room treatments and a mic with REW. I don't think I missed the point at all. I did make the choice of audyssey pro kit over REW/room treatments and would do it again. For those of you using REW (which I am one of them) it is by choice to spend a significant amount of time learning and measuring as using REW and understanding the results has a steep curve. There are alternatives to REW for measuring your room and my point was simply that to me the $500 I paid for a used kit and a license was well worth the price because of the ease of use and the almost immediate improvement it added to my untreated room.
post #4915 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Nobody would disagree with that I think. It does take some effort to learn to use REW. And room treatments are not acceptable for many. Of course, that doesn't negate the impact that treatments have on SQ.  Properly designed and used acoustic treatments will totally blow away anything that Pro can do.  Anyone who thinks that a Pro calibration will result in SQ as good as that in a properly treated room is just wrong - not that there are any who believe that in this thread AFAIK of course.
Well said and agreed
post #4916 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yes, 100% right, Jerry. I just made the same point, before seeing your post, but made it far less eloquently than you did above.

Anyone thinking that Pro can be used instead of measuring and treating the room, and that the resulting SQ will bear any comparison, is way, way off the mark.
I don't see where I even inferred this eek.gif .... in fact I didn't know it was a contest I was simply agreeing with SOM that the value of the pro kit for me was the ease of use and that any discussion related to room treatments is just not for many of us that don't have dedicated rooms.
post #4917 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yes, I am sure they will continue to generate keys. If they stop, then all our Kits become redundant on that day.  Agreed that the bugs are liveable-with. But I am still annoyed that Audyssey will take $700 off me and admit to bugs and refuse to fix them. Not good IMO. 

I too am interested in other room EQ solutions. Trinnov would be good if it could be had for a reasonable price in a decent AVR. I wonder if Pioneer will ever develop MCACC? Or Yamaha their YPAO?

Also ARC.. don't forget them.

I really don't think they'll stop generating keys, since it's an automated process. But they could save themselves some time and just give Pro users/installers keys that work until 2030 or something, then call it a day. That would actually make some sense..

 

I had forgotten ARC!  Anthem is a bit 'audiophile' for my liking :)

 

Good idea wrt to the Pro keys. I can't really see the point of making me get a new key every month anyway.

post #4918 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by HTPCat View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
 
I do beleive the discussion was as to whether audyssey was worth the price or if one would be better served spending the money on room treatments and a mic with REW. I don't think I missed the point at all. I did make the choice of audyssey pro kit over REW/room treatments and would do it again. For those of you using REW (which I am one of them) it is by choice to spend a significant amount of time learning and measuring as using REW and understanding the results has a steep curve. There are alternatives to REW for measuring your room and my point was simply that to me the $500 I paid for a used kit and a license was well worth the price because of the ease of use and the almost immediate improvement it added to my untreated room.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HTPCat View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yes, 100% right, Jerry. I just made the same point, before seeing your post, but made it far less eloquently than you did above.

Anyone thinking that Pro can be used instead of measuring and treating the room, and that the resulting SQ will bear any comparison, is way, way off the mark.
I don't see where I even inferred this eek.gif .... in fact I didn't know it was a contest I was simply agreeing with SOM that the value of the pro kit for me was the ease of use and that any discussion related to room treatments is just not for many of us that don't have dedicated rooms.

 

No problem. It could be  inferred from your post, the way it was worded I think, but the main reason for Jerry's comment, I believe, was to preempt any possibility of your post being understood that way, rather than an 'accusation' that it is what you meant.  It's amazing how often someone will pick up on a post much later and quote it as evidence of something or other and so it is useful to post a counterpoint sometimes, just to get the record straight and/or for the avoidance of doubt as to what the original poster meant.  That was also the purpose of my own post, following up on Jerry's.

 

I agree with you. If you really can't use treatments, then Pro is a useful tool. IMO, XT32 is much more useful because it delivers a bigger bang for the buck and it doesn’t cost an additional $700, but Pro does add incremental value.

post #4919 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I don't quite follow your logic here, Jeff. You make the point three times that 'difference' is an equally valid position (which I agree entirely with) but then you become annoyed that someone has a different view to yours. I find that oddly inconsistent.

Keith, if you read what I said, I said the constant drumbeat of questioning the value annoyed me. That is quite different than being annoyed that others have different views. My earlier wording was "harping" and that was a bit over-the-top. Perhaps I am still over-the-top, but I returned after a 3 month break from the thread to a new visitor hearing the same thing. I doubt that SoM started this thread to have everyone who visits here sooner or later to be told "As I have learned more, I have come to question .... the benefits of Pro over and above the (undoubted and substantial) benefits of XT32 represents good value ... " You are a man of words, with great success at it as well, and you know the power of words. So you undoubtedly know what "As I have learned more ... " conveys.

This is all me, me, me. This is all my problem. Evidently, in spite of all of your bullet points against Audyssey as a company, the Audyssey Pro Kit as well as your drama in obtaining it and getting it functional being spot on, I am still so much of a fanboy that I cannot bear to come to a thread that was intended to help people with the Pro Kit to read posts questioning the kit's existence.

Jeff
post #4920 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by HTPCat View Post

I do beleive the discussion was as to whether audyssey was worth the price or if one would be better served spending the money on room treatments and a mic with REW. I don't think I missed the point at all. I did make the choice of audyssey pro kit over REW/room treatments and would do it again. For those of you using REW (which I am one of them) it is by choice to spend a significant amount of time learning and measuring as using REW and understanding the results has a steep curve. There are alternatives to REW for measuring your room and my point was simply that to me the $500 I paid for a used kit and a license was well worth the price because of the ease of use and the almost immediate improvement it added to my untreated room.

Thank you for resisting the FUD. wink.gif

Jeff
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)