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 165

post #4921 of 5281
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.

Refresh my memory, what other than the fact that the levels and distances of dual subs - which has been attributed to the licensees/manufacturers and therefore not anything that can be fixed - has been acknowledged (by Audyssey) and will not be fixed? IIRC, concurrently with the discovery of that bug, there was a data transfer bug (on Denon?) that they did fix.

Haven't many new receivers/processors have been introduced since then with Pro compatibility ... And subsequently the XT Pro software was updated to support?

Does the dual sub bug make the software "broken?"

Do you have any information suggesting the Pro Kit has reached the end of the line and may not continue to be sold?

Jeff
post #4922 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by HTPCat View Post

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.

It is an old tactic to attribute your words to someone else, commonly referred to as putting your words in someone else's mouth, involved in a discussion and then teeing off against what "they" said. Alertness, which you displayed, is the antidote. wink.gif

Jeff
Edited by pepar - 12/28/13 at 8:49am
post #4923 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar 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.

Refresh my memory, what other than the fact that the levels and distances of dual subs - which has been attributed to the licensees/manufacturers and therefore not anything that can be fixed - has been acknowledged (by Audyssey) and will not be fixed? IIRC, concurrently with the discovery of that bug, there was a data transfer bug (on Denon?) that they did fix.

 

Jerry submitted a detailed bug report, which was generally ignored. Search will find it I should think. It was, as is usual with Jerry, very well detailed and annotated.

 

Later, Jerry submitted the report detailed in this post. He received an incorrect answer and a brush-off all in one reply!  

 

Inability to cope with dual subs properly attributed to the manufacturers?  What, ALL the manufacturers have implemented it incorrectly?  I doubt that. Audyssey aren't saying that either AFAIK. This is what they said to Jerry:

 

"Unfortunately the only fix for the incorrect sub2 values in loaded measurements is to record the trim and distance settings the first time the measurements are taken (in the install summary or by hand), and then manually adjust the trim and distance in the receiver setup after calibration."

 

They omitted to mention that this is not the ONLY fix - there is, of course, the fix which actually fixes the bug, which they have no intention of doing, as the above reply makes clear.

 

Even if you are right, which I don't think is the case, when I pay $700 for software and a few bits of cheap hardware, I expect it to work properly. Maybe I'm old fashioned? :) I don't really care whose 'fault' it is that it doesn't work - I expect it to be fixed.
 

 

 

Quote:

 Haven't many new receivers/processors have been introduced since then with Pro compatibility ... And subsequently the XT Pro software was updated to support?
 

 

Well they have no choice but to provide software for units for which they have sold licences. Unfortunately, it still contains the bugs!

 

 

Quote:

 
Does the dual sub bug make the software "broken?"
 

 

Er, yes. What do you call software that doesn't work properly?  I call it "broken".

 

 

Quote:


Do you have any information suggesting the Pro Kit has reached the end of the line and may not continue to be sold?
 

 

Well the general lack of interest in it from Audyssey is a clue. I have no inside information direct from Audyssey if that is what you mean. This is why I made it clear that this was my personal opinion in the post you reference.

post #4924 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
 
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'm even more confused now. In a reply apparently aiming to state that you are not annoyed by others holding different views to your own, you then become annoyed that I hold a different view to your own.  AIUI, there is no limitation on how many times someone can express an opinion on AVS, so what you call 'harping' I might call something else.

 

Quote:
 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.

 

"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 ... "  Yes, that is exactly my own opinion. It is clearly different to yours and the very fact that I hold the opinion clearly annoys you. I am not sure what you expect me to do about that. I am not going to change my opinion because it annoys you and I am not going to change it to fall in line with your opinion. And nor am I going to stop expressing it when I feel it is apposite to a current discussion. Something about the First Amendment comes to my mind there ;) If you don't like my opinion, Jeff, please feel free to ignore the posts in which I express it. 

 

And yes, I do know what 'as I have learned more' conveys - it conveys that my view of Pro has changed as I have learned more (about acoustics, measuring and Pro itself). Would you not expect that someone might change their views as their knowledge increases?

 

Quote:

 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.
 

 

This is not a "fanboy" thread. Counterpoint posts are, it seems to me, the essence of AVS. Different opinions are presented routinely. Mine is different to yours. Why the fact that I hold a different view to your own appears to cause you so much angst, I do not know. I have all along made it crystal clear that my remarks are my own personal opinion. That is what they are and that is what they will remain. You may have guessed that I will not be cowed into either changing my opinion or being browbeaten into refusing my right to express my opinion or permitting others in the abridging of my freedom of speech. 

post #4925 of 5281

This was the list of issues that was last updated in July 2012:

 

 

I have learned to work around each of the issues (except #4, which has not affected me) so, while they continue to be annoyances, they are not show-stoppers.

 

I don't believe Audyssey will discontinue Pro any time soon, but it is clear they are not applying resources to enhance its capabilities, other than to make the necessary modifications to support the release of new Pro-capable AVR hardware.

post #4926 of 5281
Thread Starter 

To my friends Jeff and Keith:

 

A special holiday greeting!

 

You gentlemen have both stated your positions clearly and effectively.  And I certainly respect both your opinions and your wonderful contributions on the threads.  In the spirit of keeping this thread moving forward with collegial technical discussions, please allow me to respectfully request that we resist further back-and-forth on these recent points-it seems to me not only unnecessary but counterproductive. 

 

I am hoping all are enjoying the Christmas season and am wishing you all a Happy New Year!

post #4927 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post
 

To my friends Jeff and Keith:

 

A special holiday greeting!

 

You gentlemen have both stated your positions clearly and effectively.  And I certainly respect both your opinions and your wonderful contributions on the threads.  In the spirit of keeping this thread moving forward with collegial technical discussions, please allow me to respectfully request that we resist further back-and-forth on these recent points-it seems to me not only unnecessary but counterproductive. 

 

I am hoping all are enjoying the Christmas season and am wishing you all a Happy New Year!

 

That is absolutely fine by me, SoM. HNY2U2!!

post #4928 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

To my friends Jeff and Keith:

A special holiday greeting!

You gentlemen have both stated your positions clearly and effectively.  And I certainly respect both your opinions and your wonderful contributions on the threads.  In the spirit of keeping this thread moving forward with collegial technical discussions, please allow me to respectfully request that we resist further back-and-forth on these recent points-it seems to me not only unnecessary but counterproductive. 

I am hoping all are enjoying the Christmas season and am wishing you all a Happy New Year!

Alrighty, the conversation about the conversation can be sat aside, but it is not correct that Audyssey has it in their power to correct the dual sub bug and to cite that as an example of how they have abandoned us is wrong. (Chris K's reply to me on that, I suppose, can be ignored or disbelieved.) And I am very interested in knowing what lead Keith to conclude that the Kit has reached the end of the line and may even be discontinued from being sold. I think we should all be interested in knowing that. If incorrect information is being propagated here even via expressing one's differing opinions, then why would we all not be concerned?

Jeff
post #4929 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

This was the list of issues that was last updated in July 2012:




I have learned to work around each of the issues (except #4, which has not affected me) so, while they continue to be annoyances, they are not show-stoppers.

I don't believe Audyssey will discontinue Pro any time soon, but it is clear they are not applying resources to enhance its capabilities, other than to make the necessary modifications to support the release of new Pro-capable AVR hardware.

Thanks, AJ. It is good to review the facts occasionally. Beyond these annoyances, I cannot think of anything either that I would have them add/change. I think it is mature. As long as new, Pro-ready gear is released and XT Pro is updated to work with it, I am a happy camper.

Jeff
post #4930 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
 
Alrighty, the conversation about the conversation can be sat aside, but it is not correct that Audyssey has it in their power to correct the dual sub bug and to cite that as an example of how they have abandoned us is wrong. (Chris K's reply to me on that, I suppose, can be ignored or disbelieved.) And I am very interested in knowing what lead Keith to conclude that the Kit has reached the end of the line and may even be discontinued from being sold. I think we should all be interested in knowing that. If incorrect information is being propagated here even via expressing one's differing opinions, then why would we all not be concerned?

Jeff

 

It beggars belief that three different AVR manufacturers would all make exactly the same mistake in implementation. I just don't believe that. And in any event, the delay and level bug for the 2nd sub is quite different with my Onkyo than it is with Denon units. On mine, it is not a problem when just reloading measurements - every time I run Pro from scratch, the second sub distance and level settings remain at whatever they were before the calibration. The 2nd sub is simply not set properly. For all I know it may not even be EQd properly, but I can repeat this time after time after time. If I set the distances and levels for Sub2 to something stupid prior to running Pro, they are still at something stupid after running Pro. It is a bug, it is unfixed, it will never be fixed apparently and it makes a mockery of a $700 investment. That latter bit is my opinion BTW. The rest is fact.

 

I have explained (twice) what led me to believe that the Pro Kit will not be updated again. It is my opinion that the lack of interest Audyssey show in the Kit, including not taking bug reports seriously, not giving correct replies to emails, not reading the aforementioned emails correctly in the first place, the total lack of interest in the problems I had initially with my Kit, the nonsense that the Kits are "triple checked" before being sent out and the lack of interest in fixing known bugs, all point, for me, to a product that has disappeared from the manufacturer's radar. Audyssey these days are more interested in trivial products for the mss market - eg headphone geegaws etc and 'South of the Market' crap.

 

This is not 'incorrect information". It is my considered opinion based on the facts that I observe. You may observe the same facts differently and come to a different opinion. That will not change my own opinion. You may dismiss known bugs as trivial but I do not. For $700 I expect a product that will work as advertised. Pro does not work as advertised wrt to the things mentioned in the thread. You may be happy to find 'workarounds' but I am not. I should not have to kludge software to get it to do what is meant to do. No amount of fanboy enthusiasm for a flawed product will make me change my mind, so we may as well just stop these exchanges dead.

post #4931 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

This was the list of issues that was last updated in July 2012:




I have learned to work around each of the issues (except #4, which has not affected me) so, while they continue to be annoyances, they are not show-stoppers.

I don't believe Audyssey will discontinue Pro any time soon, but it is clear they are not applying resources to enhance its capabilities, other than to make the necessary modifications to support the release of new Pro-capable AVR hardware.

Thanks, AJ. It is good to review the facts occasionally. Beyond these annoyances, I cannot think of anything either that I would have them add/change. I think it is mature. As long as new, Pro-ready gear is released and XT Pro is updated to work with it, I am a happy camper.

Jeff

 

You are happy to accept a product that does not do what it is meant to do. That is fine. Can you not see that other people rightly expect an expensive product to perform all of its functions properly?

post #4932 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

It beggars belief that three different AVR manufacturers would all make exactly the same mistake in implementation. I just don't believe that.

It was not my opinion that Chris emailed me that it was the manufacturers' limitations that prevented the data from being stored; he DID email me. And it jives with item #1 on the chart AJ posted.

The innards of modern consumer receivers/processors are quite similar, and even if they use different DSPs, those DSPs are quite similar with respect to what resources they offer.

Perhaps characterizing it as a "mistake", Audyssey's or the manufactures,' needs to be re-thought? The gear does everything else it is called upon to do. Oh wait, some drop TrueHD/DTS-HD MA at high sampling rates/bit-depths. Not for one nanosecond did I curse Dolby or Digital Theater Systems when that came to light. Perhaps Audysey could have upped XT to XT24 AND implemented dual subs "properly?" Nobody would have been the wiser. Whatever the behind the scenes events, I accept that they made decisions/compromises and did the best with what they had to work with.

This all seems to come down to what you believe and don't believe. And belief can't be changed with facts.

Jeff
Edited by pepar - 12/28/13 at 7:29pm
post #4933 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

You are happy to accept a product that does not do what it is meant to do. That is fine. Can you not see that other people rightly expect an expensive product to perform all of its functions properly?

I accept the product for what it is. "Accept" though does not give it the credit it deserves; I am delighted with the results. Like AJ - and likely many others - I use the workarounds so that the product DOES perform its function properly. When I respond to members posting here, I emphasize the positive aspects and how achieving that can be done by those querying members. I do not lead with the annoyances, wrap them up with any personal animosities I might have developed in the process of acquiring and/or using ithe kit, and then bash the manufacture with it. It is MY OPINION that constantly doing that poisons the water here on this thread.

Jeff
post #4934 of 5281
I had a conversation with Chris K. from Audyssey regarding a particular Audyssey Pro bug a couple of years back. He explained some things to me that you folks might also benefit from as the situation probably hasn't changed.

He explained to me that the Audyssey Pro software that is installed on the PC and the Audyssey firmware that is installed on the consumer product (AVR, pre-pro, etc.) not only work in conjunction with each other, but are also (unfortunately) highly/tightly coupled (or dependent on each other). This is why it is impossible to correct some bugs that exist with Audyssey Pro.

Let me explain. In order to correct some bugs with Audyssey Pro (or with the consumer version of Audyssey in the AVR for that matter), the firmware on the consumer product must be changed. That's not to say all Audyssey Pro bugs require the firmware on the consumer product to be changed, just some of them.

It's no secret that Audyssey has always been at the mercy of the AVR manufacturers regarding whether or not they decide to make an Audyssey bug a priority and therefore work with Audyssey on a firmware update. It requires effort on both Audyssey's and the manufacturer's part in order to create, test, and eventually offer up a firmware update.

Audyssey always tests their technology in new consumer products and provides feedback to the manufacturer prior to the product going into production. Unfortunately Audyssey bugs do make it into the final product. I even remember a time when an AVR (or entire line of AVRs) was released to the public with a version of Audyssey that was not the version that Audyssey tested in their lab (and gave the green light on).

These are just some of the challenges that Audyssey faces regarding Audyssey Pro bugs. I understand their predicament, but I also understand the end user's frustration with such bugs.

All this said, I am sure there are x number of known Audyssey Pro bugs that would only require changes (with varying degrees of effort) to the Audyssey Pro software. I can imagine, but obvious don't know for sure, how they handle such bugs. I'll keep my opinions to myself though.

Hopefully all of the major and show stopper bugs, whether or not they require firmwares updates, will be fixed. As time goes by, even for major or show stopper bugs, I fear the likelihood of bugs in older products being fixed are greatly reduced. That's just the nature of the beast.

Just my two cents.
post #4935 of 5281
Council, you make a valid point--if correcting some of the reported problems requires the cooperation of the AVR manufacturers, that makes things much more difficult. I don't have any idea the percentage of Pro-ready AVR owners who actually have purchased and are using a Pro kit, but I would guess that it is quite small, on the order of 1-2% at best. So, if a fix requires the manufacturer's cooperation, and a firmware roll-out that benefits only 1-2% of all AVR owners, that is indeed an uphill battle.

However, in believe new Pro-ready AVR's have been released since the list of bugs was communicated to Audyssey. For example, isn't the Denon 4000 Pro-ready? If that is the case, I wonder why Audyssey didn't work with the manufacturer to make sure fixes were in the initial release of the new AVR's? Or maybe the fixes are there? Do we have any Denon 4000 owners with Pro kits participating in this thread? Maybe we could test a 4000 to see if it has any fixes.
post #4936 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post

I had a conversation with Chris K. from Audyssey regarding a particular Audyssey Pro bug a couple of years back. He explained some things to me that you folks might also benefit from as the situation probably hasn't changed.

He explained to me that the Audyssey Pro software that is installed on the PC and the Audyssey firmware that is installed on the consumer product (AVR, pre-pro, etc.) not only work in conjunction with each other, but are also (unfortunately) highly/tightly coupled (or dependent on each other). This is why it is impossible to correct some bugs that exist with Audyssey Pro.

Let me explain. In order to correct some bugs with Audyssey Pro (or with the consumer version of Audyssey in the AVR for that matter), the firmware on the consumer product must be changed. That's not to say all Audyssey Pro bugs require the firmware on the consumer product to be changed, just some of them.

It's no secret that Audyssey has always been at the mercy of the AVR manufacturers regarding whether or not they decide to make an Audyssey bug a priority and therefore work with Audyssey on a firmware update. It requires effort on both Audyssey's and the manufacturer's part in order to create, test, and eventually offer up a firmware update.

......

Just my two cents.

Thank you for the contribution, Doug.

Jeff
post #4937 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Council, you make a valid point--if correcting some of the reported problems requires the cooperation of the AVR manufacturers, that makes things much more difficult. I don't have any idea the percentage of Pro-ready AVR owners who actually have purchased and are using a Pro kit, but I would guess that it is quite small, on the order of 1-2% at best. So, if a fix requires the manufacturer's cooperation, and a firmware roll-out that benefits only 1-2% of all AVR owners, that is indeed an uphill battle.

However, in believe new Pro-ready AVR's have been released since the list of bugs was communicated to Audyssey. For example, isn't the Denon 4000 Pro-ready? If that is the case, I wonder why Audyssey didn't work with the manufacturer to make sure fixes were in the initial release of the new AVR's? Or maybe the fixes are there? Do we have any Denon 4000 owners with Pro kits participating in this thread? Maybe we could test a 4000 to see if it has any fixes.

If the "cooperation" of the manufacturer required a more capable (read: more expensive) DSP, then there are no fixes for current units and likely not for those going forward either. They scrimp and save bloody pennies wherever they can.

Jeff
post #4938 of 5281
I can't recall ever seeing a post from a Wisdom Audio owner here. They are a nosebleed cost no object manufacturer that I doubt spreadsheets the cost of every screw and wire. And I'd bet that the resources they devote to a unit extends to extensive testing.

Jeff
post #4939 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

It is an old tactic to attribute your words to someone else, commonly referred to as putting your words in someone else's mouth, involved in a discussion and then teeing off against what "they" said. Alertness, which you displayed, is the antidote. wink.gif

Jeff
Thanks Jeff wink.gif
post #4940 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

However, in believe new Pro-ready AVR's have been released since the list of bugs was communicated to Audyssey. For example, isn't the Denon 4000 Pro-ready? If that is the case, I wonder why Audyssey didn't work with the manufacturer to make sure fixes were in the initial release of the new AVR's? Or maybe the fixes are there? Do we have any Denon 4000 owners with Pro kits participating in this thread? Maybe we could test a 4000 to see if it has any fixes.

Unfortunately I don't believe this would be a valid test to determine Audyssey's resolve to swash bugs. From my understanding, manufacturers have the option to continue to use existing versions (code bases) of Audyssey (XT, XT32, Sub EQ HT, etc.) as they introduce new gear. Implementing, testing, etc. newer/different versions of Audyssey (even if they only include bug fixes) would increase the costs of offering up a new AVR (or an entire line of AVRs). Obviously it's going to be cheaper for manufacturers to just stick with the status quo if given the choice.

IOW, I think even if Audyssey supplied manufacturers with newer (shall I say bug free!) versions of Audyssey technology for free (i.e. no additional licensing fees incurred), with the willingness to perform in house/lab testing for free (i.e. to provide manufacturers with a stamp of approval), I could still see manufacturers refusing to use them. frown.gif

I am not on anyone's side here. I am just stating the facts as I recall them from previous conversations with, and posts from, Audyssey.

Also, I am a Software Engineer by trade. Therefore I understand the effort required, as well as pro's and con's, for such tasks as mentioned above.
post #4941 of 5281
Point of information: IYHO is the issue of apparently permanent Audyssey Pro bugs more a reluctance of manufacturers to upgrade AVR firmware, or an issue related to the capacity of the DSP chip itself to do more than operate in a hard-wired manner?

To that I say...Oppo!
Edited by sdrucker - 12/28/13 at 4:15pm
post #4942 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

Point of information: IYHO is the issue of apparently permanent Audyssey Pro bugs more a reluctance of manufacturers to upgrade AVR firmware, or an issue related to the capacity of the DSP chip itself to do more than operate in a hard-wired manner?

To that I say...Oppo!

That may be unknowable without information specific to the situation. But Doug's opinion on it would be more inciteful than those of the rest of us unless someone else among us is also a software engineer.

Jeff
post #4943 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

That may be unknowable without information specific to the situation.

Jeff

I agree with you Jeff. I only provided some information that was told to me from the folks at Audyssey back when they more freely spoke out regarding such 'situations'. I haven't been in touch with Audyssey for ~2 years now. That's a long time. My information is clearly out-dated, and maybe only the folks closest to the 'situations' know if some of what I mentioned still happens to apply.

Also, I was only trying to comment on the effort that it takes to develop, support, and implement software products/solutions, how that effort equates to $, and why I thought that could affect the bottom line and decision making (by Audyssey and the manufacturers).

From a software development and support perspective there are way too many variables that could be at play as to determine why Audyssey and the manufacturers make the decisions that they do. I would assume that Audyssey works with every manufacturer that licenses their technologies on a continual basis to access any new 'situations' in addition to other topics of interest (renewal of licenses, Audyssey's roadmap, the manufacturer's roadmap, etc.).

IMO, all we can do is continue to engage Audyssey (or the manufacturer) when we encounter what we think is a new issue or provide any additional information for existing known issues. From there they will have to decide the next course of action.
post #4944 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

That may be unknowable without information specific to the situation. But Doug's opinion on it would be more inciteful than those of the rest of us unless someone else among us is also a software engineer.

Jeff

I will add my support and concurrence to the reasoning Counsil has provided in regards to software development and the decisions Audyssey and the manufacturers have made. It is very difficult to change software interfaces when more than one party (multiple companies or multiple organizations within one company) has to be involved. This is true even if the only requirement on the various parties is to verify there are no regressions. I could go on at much further length about the difficulties in this area, but I don't think that is the purpose of this forum. In regards to my credentials to comment in this area I am an electrical engineer with 30+ years experience in software design and development of operating systems and network communications.
post #4945 of 5281

I can scarcely believe what I am reading. Has fanboyism become so rife that all critical faculties are now in suspension in some quarters?

 

We have now, submitted on behalf of the defence, the 'buck passing' mitigation. "It isn't Audyssey's fault their product does not work as advertised, it is the fault of those naughty AVR manufacturers."

 

So, Audyssey are happy to take my $700 for a product they know does not work as advertised so long as they can pass the buck to someone else? Excuse me if I don't call this naked, opportunistic commercialism of the worst possible kind. Audyssey licence their technology to an AVR manufacturer. The advertise the technology to the consumer as, among other things, having the capability to set the levels and distances independently for two subwoofers and then EQ the two subwoofers as one. They charge the consumer $700 for this technology.

 

And when it doesn't work, they pass the buck. And some of you guys find this acceptable. Really?  

 

Audyssey don't for example, insist that the AVR manufacturers make their (Audyssey's) product work as advertised. They don't threaten to withdraw the licence unless the AVR manufacturer steps up to the plate and fixes the problem? They just keep taking the licence fees and keep taking the 700 bucks? I stand amazed that the country which I believed represented the consumer over the commercial, every time, has a vocal band of people who apparently don't subscribe to this creed.

 

I bought the product from Audyssey. I paid Audyssey my money. The product does not work as advertised. Who am I to blame for this?  It is not for me to badger the AVR manufacturers into properly implementing the technology for which consumers are being charged a substantial sum. It is for the entity which sold me the product to undertake that. So, guys, I am sorry, but the 'buck passing defence' fails totally to impress me.

 

I just do not care why the product I bought does not work properly, nor do I care whose fault it is. Nor do I care how difficult it is to fix. Nor do I care what the manufacturers' difficulties or problems are. These are not my problems - they are the problems of the company which took my $700 off me and promised me something they are not able to deliver. My problem is I have paid for a product that does not work as advertised and the manufacturer of that product itself does not seem to care!

 

Now I have been accused of "poisoning the waters" of the thread by pointing out deficiencies in Audyssey Pro. It seems that some would prefer simply that I come here not to bury Audyssey but to praise it. Hang the poor sap who comes here to get the true skinny on a $700 investment before making up his own mind as to whether he can live with any issues - just let's all toe the Audysey line and agree that the product is wonderful and any problems with it are easily "worked around" (even though that is not true in the case of the sub level and delay bug - how do I "work around" that?  What shall I set the level and delay at for my second sub?  Just guess?). 

 

I am accused of 'harping on' about these things. I suspect that if I had repeated a thousand times that Pro was wonderful and flawless and brilliant value for money, I would not have faced that accusation. It is only when my view differs from a self-confessed 'fanboy perspective' that it requires being taken to task apparently.

 

All of this detracts from my central point, which is that in my opinion, Pro does not provide a $700 improvement over XT32. If someone has measurements which prove me wrong, I will be happy to revise my opinion. As it is, it stands.

 

I fully accept that some people find some of the Pro features to be very worthwhile. For example, the ability to save and reload calibrations is undoubtedly useful. Some would say the Target Curve Editor is useful too. I don't agree and my opinion is that is is too crude and too limited to offer much of great value. (It also begs the question as to why Pro did not itself fix the issues which need attention if the TCE is used.)  Some would say that the individually calibrated mic is superior to the 'bulk calibrated' mic and I would agree - but the value of the mic is only something like 80 dollars, so it represents a fairly small part of the $700 cost of the Pro Kit.

 

In order, in my opinion, for Pro to offer good value for $700 it would need to do one essential thing: it would need to provide a result superior to that obtainable with XT32 alone, and where the same $700 was spent on making improvements elsewhere. It is my opinion that Pro does not represent good value in these circumstances except where the user has no ability to measure independently and has no ability to use acoustic room treatments. For those in the latter camp, Pro is probably a worthwhile investment, even with its 'issues'. For those who have REW and know how to use it, and who can treat their rooms, and who can add a little PEQ here and there if desired, Pro does probably NOT represent great value for money.  For those who have Pro AND the ability to measure and use room treatments, I repeat: what does Pro bring to the table in sonic terms only which XT32 does not, and are those differences worth $700? If the measurements of a Pro calibration vs an XT32 calibration are available, then let's see them. Meanwhile, even the fanboys and I agree on one thing it seems: the benefits of Pro are incremental only.

 

Jeff - I agreed above to SoM's eloquent request that we leave this alone, but you would not and had to come back with further comment, hence my own further reply. I am happy to comply with SoM's request but only if you are. I do not want to see this discussion become a running sore any more than I assume you do.


Edited by kbarnes701 - 12/29/13 at 4:34am
post #4946 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by retate View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

That may be unknowable without information specific to the situation. But Doug's opinion on it would be more inciteful than those of the rest of us unless someone else among us is also a software engineer.

Jeff

I will add my support and concurrence to the reasoning Counsil has provided in regards to software development and the decisions Audyssey and the manufacturers have made. It is very difficult to change software interfaces when more than one party (multiple companies or multiple organizations within one company) has to be involved. This is true even if the only requirement on the various parties is to verify there are no regressions. I could go on at much further length about the difficulties in this area, but I don't think that is the purpose of this forum. In regards to my credentials to comment in this area I am an electrical engineer with 30+ years experience in software design and development of operating systems and network communications.

 

it may be very difficult, but it is not the customer's problem. The customer's problem is in receiving a product that does not work properly. It is for the seller of that product to ensure that it works as advertised.

 

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into this "oh it is really difficult for us to make a product... you just don't know what problems we have to go through here... ".  The customer doesn't, and shouldn't, give a monkey's foofoo. Problems in manufacture are the manufacturer's problem - if he finds life too difficult, then he should go do something else. I ran my own successful, multi-million dollar turnover business for 3 decades - if I had ever once heard a member of my staff say to a client that we had let him down because "you just don't understand how hard it is to do this job" he would have been dismissed on the spot.


Edited by kbarnes701 - 12/29/13 at 4:28am
post #4947 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I can't recall ever seeing a post from a Wisdom Audio owner here. They are a nosebleed cost no object manufacturer that I doubt spreadsheets the cost of every screw and wire. And I'd bet that the resources they devote to a unit extends to extensive testing.

Jeff

 

Ah yes - the price = quality posit. Would this be in any way a similar posit to the one where Lexicon buried an Oppo BD player inside a different case and added $3,000 to the price?  Must have been better eh? It cost over $3,000 ;)

post #4948 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post
 
 
IOW, I think even if Audyssey supplied manufacturers with newer (shall I say bug free!) versions of Audyssey technology for free (i.e. no additional licensing fees incurred), with the willingness to perform in house/lab testing for free (i.e. to provide manufacturers with a stamp of approval), I could still see manufacturers refusing to use them. frown.gif

 

If that was the case, Doug, surely the honourable thing for a manufacturer of a software-based product to do would be to withdraw from the arrangement on the basis that to remain in it would result in the consumer receiving a flawed product?  To simply press ahead regardless is surely treating the consumer with contempt?


Edited by kbarnes701 - 12/29/13 at 4:27am
post #4949 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I can scarcely believe what I am reading. Has fanboyism become so rife that all critical faculties are now in suspension in some quarters?

......

Jeff - I agreed above to SoM's eloquent request that we leave this alone, but you would not and had to come back with further comment, hence my own further reply. I am happy to comply with SoM's request but only if you are. I do not want to see this discussion become a running sore any more than I assume you do.

I think everyone has a good understanding of the Pro Kit's flaws, the circumstances behind why they still exist and how to workaround them. One or two of us have railed about them occasionally before, I'd presume, just dealing with it and enjoying their systems. But I have never seen a horse as high as the one you are on over this. You seem to be completely unhinged over it, matey. And at one time, when you put the FAQ together, you were the biggest fanboy in the bunch.

I can't imagine that anything new can be added, but whatever ......
post #4950 of 5281
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I can scarcely believe what I am reading. Has fanboyism become so rife that all critical faculties are now in suspension in some quarters?

......

Jeff - I agreed above to SoM's eloquent request that we leave this alone, but you would not and had to come back with further comment, hence my own further reply. I am happy to comply with SoM's request but only if you are. I do not want to see this discussion become a running sore any more than I assume you do.

I think everyone has a good understanding of the Pro Kit's flaws, the circumstances behind why they still exist and how to workaround them. One or two of us have railed about them occasionally before, I'd presume, just dealing with it and enjoying their systems. But I have never seen a horse as high as the one you are on over this. You seem to be completely unhinged over it, matey. 

 

I am hugely impressed that you can say this without even the merest hint of irony :)

 

 

Quote:

 And at one time, when you put the FAQ together, you were the biggest fanboy in the bunch.

 

Absolutely. As I said before, my learning and understanding have now progressed.  I am still a huge advocate of XT32 of course and would not want to be without it (unless somehing better becomes available of course).

 

 

Quote:

 I can't imagine that anything new can be added, but whatever ......

 

OK. I am happy to leave it if you are. Both sides have presented their views. It has been a 'lively' discussion and has remained amicable on both sides IMO.  We shall have to agree to disagree.  I wish you and yours a successful, healthy and peaceful 2014.

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)