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 23

post #661 of 4227
11/26/11 at 10:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmschnur View Post

License is forever and costs ~ 150 from Audyssey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

^To add to Jim's clarification, BCJ, the license itself is software and is sold separately from the kit, directly from Audyssey.

To move the ball forward the final foot, the license is forever ... and is forever attached to the unit to which it is assigned. When the unit is sold, it goes with it.

Further really-deep-in-the-weeds factoid is that licenses are purchased, and then they are assigned. I had originally purchased two and used one immediately. When that unit was replaced, I assigned the second license to the new unit.

A possible exception is if the unit goes defective, in which case it is Audyssey's discretion if they allow a transfer. I have no personal experience with that situation, only know what I have read.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #662 of 4227
11/26/11 at 10:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I don't recall any discussion that claimed that the 4th or higher recommendation was to be avoided. IMO, if it is listed as a choice in Pro, then it should be a viable option.

A few pages back there was a discussion between selecting XO's with Pro and a few members stated they never choose a XO lower than the 3rd recommendation. I made the mistake of assuming (I know, I know) that this was a generally accepted practice/unwritten rule.....when in reality it is probably just personal preference.

My fault
Reply
Reply
post #663 of 4227
11/26/11 at 10:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I don't recall any discussion that claimed that the 4th or higher recommendation was to be avoided. IMO, if it is listed as a choice in Pro, then it should be a viable option.

Viable, OK. But it is less optimal than the one above it. Ditto until you are at the top recommendation. What we don't have is numerical values that would allow us to consider how much less optimal when weighing against the other reasons for raising a crossover.
Reply
Reply
post #664 of 4227
11/26/11 at 10:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCoolJesus View Post

A few pages back there was a discussion between selecting XO's with Pro and a few members stated they never choose a XO lower than the 3rd recommendation. I made the mistake of assuming (I know, I know) that this was a generally accepted practice/unwritten rule.....when in reality it is probably just personal preference.

My fault

I had made that comment. Fortunately, I only need to go max three deep to get to 80Hz ... the ones above it on the list are lower. I have THX certified speakers that are designed to be crossed at 80Hz, and I have a main amp which I suspect is running out of gas on some peaks.
Reply
Reply
post #665 of 4227
11/26/11 at 11:29am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I don't recall any discussion that claimed that the 4th or higher recommendation was to be avoided. IMO, if it is listed as a choice in Pro, then it should be a viable option.

True. Though when I questioned Luke on this he really encouraged me to give the top ranked xover (as long as it's not Large, of course) a try, despite that entire octave 40-80Hz I wanted to keep giving to the subs.

I'm glad my system sounds so good, and so clean, following that advice. If like Jeff, I had any hint that I didn't have the amp power, or speaker capability, I'd do yet more careful listening tests. Instead I moved on and spent time tuning other aspects of my system.

OT, but to put things in perspective, recently I've done A/B comparisons of the Denon AVR A100 in nl vs preamp mode. It yields a small but consistent SQ advantage. So I just bought a little sister for my Emo XPA5, a bargain refurb Emo UPA2 to power the DSX wides, so I can run in preamp mode.

I also purchased a lightly used Denon DBPA100 universal BRP with DenonLink4 (for $1K, MSRP $2.5K) so I could hear for myself whether the DL4 jitter reduction makes a difference. That involved a healthy number of A/B tests, of all shiny disc formats; BluRay, DVD, SACD, DVDA and redbook CD in a digital shootout with my trusty OppoBDP83SE. I found no consistent differences on BluRay and DVD but the Oppo was soundly beaten (pun intended) on the other formats. The HiRes music is really impressive. More importantly, because of the much greater variety available and lower cost, even well-recorded redbook CDs now sound amazingly good.

Now to get busy buying CDs on Amazon...
Reply
Reply
post #666 of 4227
11/26/11 at 1:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post



I also purchased a lightly used Denon DBPA100 universal BRP with DenonLink4 (for $1K, MSRP $2.5K) so I could hear for myself whether the DL4 jitter reduction makes a difference. That involved a healthy number of A/B tests, of all shiny disc formats; BluRay, DVD, SACD, DVDA and redbook CD in a digital shootout with my trusty OppoBDP83SE. I found no consistent differences on BluRay and DVD but the Oppo was soundly beaten (pun intended) on the other formats.

The BDP-83SE has a well-regarded analog output. My understanding is that to take full advantage of the superior analog sound quality, one would need to ensure that there were no subsequent D/A conversions in the AVR. This would mean connecting to the EXT-IN connections, and ensuring Audyssey and bass management were disabled. Is this the way you conducted the A/B comparison?
Reply
Reply
post #667 of 4227
11/26/11 at 1:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCoolJesus View Post

A few pages back there was a discussion between selecting XO's with Pro and a few members stated they never choose a XO lower than the 3rd recommendation. I made the mistake of assuming (I know, I know) that this was a generally accepted practice/unwritten rule.....when in reality it is probably just personal preference.

My fault

Interesting as I only ever get a choice of large plus three x-over frequencies; 40, 60 and 80, but not in that order for all satellites. What I have noticed is that if I do not select the first one, the crossover region becomes measurably more "lumpy" as I move lower down the selection. This becomes audible so I always select the first frequency.
Reply
Reply
post #668 of 4227
11/26/11 at 1:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digione View Post

Interesting as I only ever get a choice of large plus three x-over frequencies; 40, 60 and 80, but not in that order for all satellites. What I have noticed is that if I do not select the first one, the crossover region becomes measurably more "lumpy" as I move lower down the selection. This becomes audible so I always select the first frequency.

Forgive me for being a pest, but could you better expand on the term "lumpy"? Is it just a measurable difference between the crossover choices or is it an obvious audible difference as well?

And I'm assuming (there I go again) that when you say first selection, you are not counting "Full" are you?
Reply
Reply
post #669 of 4227
11/26/11 at 3:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I certainly agree with what SOM says. There has been a lot of discussion regarding how Pro suggests crossover values. Unfortunately, A/B comparisons take about 10 minutes to switch between crossover selections, as we well know. In my system, Pro recommends Large, 40Hz, 80Hz, and then 60 Hz. I have tried three of the settings (not Large), using both listening tests and REW measurements. The REW measurement differences are very subtle, and the listening tests have never resulted in a crossover choice that is obviously "better". Furthermore, there has been no definitive answer to the question, "How much worse is the second or third recommendation, compared with the first recommendation?".

There may be no definitive answer and your experience is similar to mine. It is relatively easy to change the crossover in Pro and re-audition. Having done this many, many times with different processors, only once or twice did I hear a really notable difference. Otherwise, it was always subtle. My take from this is that, in the majority of situations (different speakers, different processors, same room), the crossover differences are small but compulsive audiophiles may need to prove that to themselves (ourselves).
Reply
Reply
post #670 of 4227
11/26/11 at 3:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCoolJesus View Post

So the differences between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd recommendations are subtle at best.....but is there a definitive answer to the question of "How much worse is choosing a 4th or higher recommendation"? Is that considered "dark" territory?

There are no fixed differences in performance across all situations.
Reply
Reply
post #671 of 4227
11/26/11 at 3:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

There are no fixed differences in performance across all situations.

Yea....I realize the huge error in the logic of my previous questions. I definitely feel somewhat embarrassed and idiotic. Thanks for everyone being patient while my mind struggled to sort all this out

I think I get it now: there is no set rule of which crossover to choose and any of the recommendations reported by Audyssey (besides Full unless someone really really wants to) can be chosen based on the end users taste without apparent sound quality differences between choice A vs. B vs. C, etc......Pro will still do a substantial job of integration between the speakers and the sub(s).


On a different note, Pro *builds* off of the existing Audyssey iteration present in the component being used. So an XT 32 receiver that has Pro added into the loop will still properly handle dual subs, whereas a standard XT iteration with Pro would not. Correct?
Reply
Reply
post #672 of 4227
11/26/11 at 5:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCoolJesus View Post

Yea....I realize the huge error in the logic of my previous questions. I definitely feel somewhat embarrassed and idiotic. Thanks for everyone being patient while my mind struggled to sort all this out

I think I get it now: there is no set rule of which crossover to choose and any of the recommendations reported by Audyssey (besides Full unless someone really really wants to) can be chosen based on the end users taste without apparent sound quality differences between choice A vs. B vs. C, etc......Pro will still do a substantial job of integration between the speakers and the sub(s).


On a different note, Pro *builds* off of the existing Audyssey iteration present in the component being used. So an XT 32 receiver that has Pro added into the loop will still properly handle dual subs, whereas a standard XT iteration with Pro would not. Correct?

Correct. Pro does not do Audyssey room correction; it makes your Audyssey room correction smarter.
Reply
Reply
post #673 of 4227
11/26/11 at 6:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCoolJesus View Post

...any of the recommendations reported by Audyssey [...] can be chosen based on the end users taste without apparent sound quality differences between choice A vs. B vs. C, etc......Pro will still do a substantial job of integration between the speakers and the sub(s).

I don't think that it has been established yet that Pro can guarantee good integration no matter the x-over. In fact, I would be extremely surprised (but as pleased as Punch) if that was the case.
Reply
Reply
post #674 of 4227
11/26/11 at 6:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReneV View Post

I don't think that it has been established yet that Pro can guarantee good integration no matter the x-over. In fact, I would be extremely surprised (but as pleased as Punch) if that was the case.

Why not? No one says all the options are equal but it does adjust the EQ to suit.
Reply
Reply
post #675 of 4227
11/26/11 at 7:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

Why not? No one says all the options are equal but it does adjust the EQ to suit.

Two reasons:
- I haven't seen Audyssey draw attention to that particular capability as much as I would think it would warrant (of course, I could have missed it)
- phase is not always well-behaved, meaning that integration is not always a matter of lining up a collection of equally-spaced polarity "peaks" and "null", at least to my experience; sometimes, phase off the subs, in particular, are all over the place in some frequency range, and all you can do, really, is to hope that you can side-step messed-up ranges with x-overs.

[Please, please, please prove me wrong]
Reply
Reply
post #676 of 4227
11/26/11 at 8:24pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

The BDP-83SE has a well-regarded analog output. My understanding is that to take full advantage of the superior analog sound quality, one would need to ensure that there were no subsequent D/A conversions in the AVR. This would mean connecting to the EXT-IN connections, and ensuring Audyssey and bass management were disabled. Is this the way you conducted the A/B comparison?

As to your question at the end, no I did not do any analog connections. This is waaay OT but I started it, so let me briefly explain. I used the Oppo as a digital transport as I did the Denon, both connected by HDMI. Both were set to bitstream BluRay and SACD DSD and both sent all else PCM. The difference was that the Denon apparently provides better clocking of the digital data using DenonLink. Irrelevent to this test, I'd upgraded from the BDP83 to the SE while exploring "HT bypass" analog preamps. I have a detailed but old thread on the analog experiments and another much more recent thread on DenonLink stuff.

More arcane stuff: as to the superior DACs of the Oppo83SE, they are good and I used to use the dedicated stereo analog outs to listen to redbook CDs. I did several A/B/C tests comparing Ext In/No Audyssey to regular Analog in, both with and without Audyssey and to digital via HDMI. Although Ext In had an edge over Analog In/No Audyssey and HDMI/No Audyssey, it lost to HDMI/Audyssey. Surprisingly, Analog In with Audyssey was the best, despite the added ADC/DAC. I found this true with my Denon AVR 2809 and later with an AVR4310. With the A100, the HDMIAudyssey sounds as good as the Analog/Audyssey.
Reply
Reply
post #677 of 4227
11/26/11 at 8:27pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReneV View Post

...[Please, please, please prove me wrong]

I'm afraid no one can prove you wrong except you, when you try this gear out for yourself. My experience, and that reported by several others here, is that XT32 is really good with the bass and Pro adds another layer of good. YMMV.
Reply
Reply
post #678 of 4227
11/27/11 at 1:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReneV View Post


Two reasons:
- I haven't seen Audyssey draw attention to that particular capability as much as I would think it would warrant (of course, I could have missed it)
- phase is not always well-behaved, meaning that integration is not always a matter of lining up a collection of equally-spaced polarity "peaks" and "null", at least to my experience; sometimes, phase off the subs, in particular, are all over the place in some frequency range, and all you can do, really, is to hope that you can side-step messed-up ranges with x-overs.

Actually, there's a third reason
- Pro offers multiple prioritized x-overs
Reply
Reply
post #679 of 4227
11/27/11 at 8:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReneV View Post

Two reasons:
- I haven't seen Audyssey draw attention to that particular capability as much as I would think it would warrant (of course, I could have missed it)
- phase is not always well-behaved, meaning that integration is not always a matter of lining up a collection of equally-spaced polarity "peaks" and "null", at least to my experience; sometimes, phase off the subs, in particular, are all over the place in some frequency range, and all you can do, really, is to hope that you can side-step messed-up ranges with x-overs.

[Please, please, please prove me wrong]

I do not know if there is any way of proving this generically since every acoustical situation is different. In one case, the various options might all be close in terms of quality and in another they may be more disparate. What one can see is that only 4 choices are offered (it does not rank all options) but that, iirc, it always lists 4.

My original contention that they are all "acceptable" is based purely on subjective experience when choosing among the options.
Reply
Reply
post #680 of 4227
11/27/11 at 11:14am
Hi,

Not knowing if this has already been posted, but the new MultEQ Pro 3.5 software is now available.

It adds support for:

4. What’s New in Version 3.5 (Core 716, ICL 562)
• MultEQ Pro support to
o Denon AVR 3312CI,AVR-2312, AVR-5308 3D Edition, AVP-A1HD 3D
Edition, AVC-A1HD 3D Edition
o Marantz AVR-SR6006

and no mention of Onkyo xxx9 or equivalent Integra series products...

Hugo
Reply
Reply
post #681 of 4227
11/27/11 at 11:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo S View Post

Hi,

Not knowing if this has already been posted, but the new MultEQ Pro 3.5 software is now available.

It adds support for:

4. What's New in Version 3.5 (Core 716, ICL 562)
o MultEQ Pro support to
o Denon AVR 3312CI,AVR-2312, AVR-5308 3D Edition, AVP-A1HD 3D
Edition, AVC-A1HD 3D Edition
o Marantz AVR-SR6006

and no mention of Onkyo xxx9 or equivalent Integra series products...

Hugo

Any note of changes in processing?
Reply
Reply
post #682 of 4227
11/27/11 at 11:37am
Usually, Audyssey Installer Support says don't upgrade unless you need to calibrate one of the added units.
Reply
Reply
post #683 of 4227
11/27/11 at 11:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Usually, Audyssey Installer Support says don't upgrade unless you need to calibrate one of the added units.

I have had occasional network connection issues and besides doing anything different with audio wondered if there were network changes.
Reply
Reply
post #684 of 4227
11/27/11 at 12:22pm
I emailed Luke. Will post reply.
Reply
Reply
post #685 of 4227
11/28/11 at 6:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCoolJesus View Post

Forgive me for being a pest, but could you better expand on the term "lumpy"? Is it just a measurable difference between the crossover choices or is it an obvious audible difference as well?

And I'm assuming (there I go again) that when you say first selection, you are not counting "Full" are you?

No I am not including FULL/LARGE.

If I do a room sweep 15-250Hz then as I move away from the recomended 1st x-over the variations in amplitude changes around the selected crossover get greater.

Realistically they all sound exceptable, the audable differences are very small. I just go with the 1st recomended x-over due to the smoother crossover response and I do not need to worry about "off loading" my LF energy to the subs at a higher frequency as I am using Tri-amped Genelec 1038's.

My bigger concern that does not seem to manifest itself audably is that Pro tells me that my subs are polarity inverted but XT by itself on the AVP does not. The issue seems to be corrected when running Pro on the AVP by changing my sub distance to 20.3 feet from the correct Sub EQ calibration of 10.3 feet. Strange as my room is only 18.5 feet long so I am assuming that the added delay is to phase correct the polarity inverted signal.

Any insights on the effects of sub polarity errors would be gratefully received.
Reply
Reply
post #686 of 4227
11/28/11 at 6:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digione View Post


Any insights on the effects of sub polarity errors would be gratefully received.

No insights here, but wanted to say that Pro always reports the polarity of my subs are reversed. As per Audyssey recommendation, I ignore the warning and proceed with the calibration, and accept the calculated sub distances without changes.
Reply
Reply
post #687 of 4227
11/28/11 at 7:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

No insights here, but wanted to say that Pro always reports the polarity of my subs are reversed. As per Audyssey recommendation, I ignore the warning and proceed with the calibration, and accept the calculated sub distances without changes.

Works for me, that's just what I did.
Reply
Reply
post #688 of 4227
11/28/11 at 10:06am
Hi Jeff,

The MultEQ Pro 3.5 is out to support the latest AVRs, you should be fine with 3.4.

Regards,
Luke
Audyssey Laboratories
Installer Support
--------------------------------------------------
From: Jeff Horn
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 12:21 PM
To: Je-Kin Loke
Subject: Re: Pro and 5508

Hi Luke,

Is there any reason to upgrade Pro to 3.5 if I am not calibrating any of the added units?

Thanks,
Jeff
Reply
Reply
post #689 of 4227
11/28/11 at 10:29am
So I'm waiting to get a phone call back from a local A/V store that is listed on Audyssey's website as an Installer......they accept trade-ins and I just so happen to have a Paradigm subwoofer I am trying to sell so I'm hoping I can get a good amount knocked off on a Pro kit from them.


In the meantime, another question: when I contact Audyssey/Luke to get a license for my receiver, is it actual software I have to receive in the mail/have shipped to me or is it something I download/receive electronically? Just wondering if I should get the ball rolling on a license while waiting to get the Pro kit (since I know I will be getting one).

Thanks.
Reply
Reply
post #690 of 4227
11/28/11 at 10:52am
Thread Starter 
Great.

No snail-mail involved with the license, it's a download. There's also an access key# available in your section of the installer website. It's good for 30d, but you can easily update it on your own when needed for free.

edit/correction: in addition to the Pro software, you may need to download various other things such as the Pro Setup guide, Vista drivers, various pdfs including instructions for certain AVRs and Pre/pros, etc., all on the Downloads page
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread (FAQ in post #1)