The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 4

True. It's impractical (but if you had a Kinect ...) to compensate for movement without something like a Realiser. A deeper question is how much it matters to the end result. The EQ is a single static transform on the signal and will be more correct in some spots that in others.


As I said I don't know if or how Audyssey compensates for phase changes.


The example provided by markus767 is ~ .7 m (2.3 ft).

If you want to compare Audyssey results to other systems you need measure from a single spot. As soon as you start doing averaging to emulate multiple Audyssey measurement positions you've introduced things you cannot know or control because they're Audyssey secrets.

A standard run sets my subs to different distances and trims. A pro run sets them to be the same. Is that typical?

Here's one sub versus two (in the front corners).

Agreed. The approach I take is to make before/after Audyssey calibration with an independent system and compare these, not to the Audyssey measurements.

That is the right thing to do. Unfortunately nobody publishes these kind of measurements online.

One point to keep in mind is that each Room EQ scheme has its own unique target final EQ response curve..
Once the system's calibration software is run, then the AVR's processor takes those coefficients, plugs them in, runs the equations and then...
Out comes a revised, room transfer function..

The challenge is that each flavor of Room EQ software, be it Yamaha, Pioneer, Harman/Kardon, NAD, Meridian and those brands running Audyssey or Trinnov S/W can/will sound differently..

Maybe its time for a respected publication or testing house runs a comparison face-off between the major EQ software players. The room and loudspeakers should be neutral, but one could eliminate the variable of amplifier contribution by measuring each output @ pre-outs..

Just my $0.02...

I see the same behavior. It looks like this is the way Audyssey designed the two pieces of software. I certainly hope Pro is establishing the correct delays for my two subs, which are not equidistant from the MLP.

The realist in me say that it'll never happen and even the optimist agrees.

Not in my experience. Audyssey Pro always set the distances differently. Maybe Audyssey Pro was hitting it's limit on how much delay it could handle? Maybe that's part of the reason why Audyssey Pro isn't calibrating my subs very well?

I did another run and got different values for the distances but the trims are still the same. They still don't match standard XT32 but they're close. It's also not useful that the certificate graph only gives a single value for Subwoofer 1+2. And as long as I'm complaining it would be nice if all the trim numbers in the GUI matched the 'CV?' command.

Really depends upon the targeted outcome..
We know there are significant differences between the various EQ software but the tests could be run in (2) parts..
Part 1 could be for for system setup specifications including channel trims, x-over points/slopes and delays but without EQ.
Part 2 could be a frequency sweep of the listening room, then an overlay chart for each showing what changes were calculated and respective final transfer function curve.

To keep the face-off between brands from becoming a finger pointing exercise, the publication can simply refer to each as Brand A, Brand B, Brand C..

In closing...
Since virtually all AVRs and processors include a Room EQ software each portraying itself as the end-all solution..
I can tell you we have installed all of the major brand AVRs, run their software with wide varying end-results....
@ certain times the system just simply sounds better with the EQ OFF which means it is doing more harm than good...

Just my $0.02...

Equipment reviews, as far as I know, are with the cooperation or at least consent of the manufacturers. What would they have to gain by participating in such a comparison? What they have to lose is obvious.

My experience is with two pre/pros with Audyssey, and I have done Audyssey Pro calibrations on both of them. There has never been any time that I even considered listening with Audyssey off.

My trims are always different as well.

I do agree but it is unlikely that the investment in time and facilities will be made.

Bodosom, perhaps I misunderstood your OP? When I run a standard XT32 calibration, the distances for my two subs are set to 11.2 and 13.1, which is very close to what I actually measure. When I run Pro, it shows the two distances as being both 13.6. The trim values for both XT32 and Pro are the same. Is it the distance settings differences what you are questioning?

No, initially the distances and trims -- per the GUI -- were the same and wrong. I did another run and the distances changed and are different, the trims changed but are the same for each subwoofer. None of the values quite match a standard calibration (which see below). I'm distressed that this is so fiddly.

Of course there is good news:
The estimated post EQ response of the pair is much better than a single sub although not so much in the working range.
The (higher) subwoofer level now matches the other speakers.

Keep in mind that the publications already have products for revue, just run additional testing under controlled conditions for the EQ article. As mentioned the brands don't have to be mentioned, but the objective of the article would not be to rank by brand but rather illustrate and elaborate their differences then let the consumer decide.


I too have the Audyssey Pro Kit plus the hands-on experience of running each of the mentioned EQ systems in real-world installations. Even though I have my own conclusions, as posted previously I am not going to rank one to another but suffice it to say that there are significant, sonic differences..
This is especially crucial how each EQ software addresses the challenging low frequencies, if the listening room's LF nodes/peaks are not smoothed out they can/will corrupt the system's resolution significantly masking its possible sonic performance....

By experience we know there are significant sonic differences between rooms and loudspeakers, and less sonic differences between cables and electronics. However for the Room EQ systems there are major audible differences, even when rerunning the same software and moving the microphone very slightly....
But again which one is correct..

Just my $0.02...

How would a consumer make a choice w/o knowing which is which?

But I agree this will never happen, unless by a highly motivated non-pro, in which case the brands would presumably be identified.

You are putting cart before the horse..
As of now the majority of the users hit the button and run whatever Room EQ software is available in their AVR or processor. They have no basis of comparison other than it either it sounds good or sounds bad...
Just because it sounds different with Room EQ activated doesn't mean it is correct and more accurate...


I would not say never..
In today's electronic guru world, there are innovative students/enthusiasts that with clever PC software could actually determine certain creditable results..
In fact..
A challenged university class for its electronic engineering school could be a possible place to consider doing this...

Which by the way was instrumental in how Audyssey got its
start @ USC..

Just my $0.02..

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/1...uation-of.html

Discussion: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1192916

What would the consumer decide w/o knowing brands?

I really don't mean to drag out off-topic points but ...

I must be missing something. I've read the posts related to your suggestion and I'm still baffled. What metrics would you use to "elaborate their differences" that would be both useful yet not lead to a ranking?


Not really, assuming noah katz means brand of RC software. Although the specific manufacturer and model also matter when they releases patches to the RC software or find problems with the mic.

Yes, but single spot measurements are not very useful in acoustics, because they vary all over the room. Even your two ears are not in a single spot. And, if you move or turn your head slightly, that's a bunch of different spots.

I guess I have a hard time understanding this need to measure independently. Either you trust Audyssey or you don't. And, you will never duplicate their results independently with spot measurements. It is deliberately trying to EQ for an area, not a spot, because that is what we need for actual listening. That's what we bought in Audyssey. Yes, there are secrets in how they do their "fuzzy logic" spatial averaging. But, I tend to believe they have thought it through quite thoroughly and do a better job than most other approaches.

So, I personally think the thing to do is to do the Audyssey calibration as exactingly as you can, then listen. With Pro, you can tweak the target curves if you feel it necessary (I don't) until the sound is to your liking. End of story. Independent measurements only confuse the issue, as I see it, and it is doubtful they are "better".

Yes, and a different approach is likely to yield different results because of differing measurement techniques and assumptions. Acoustics, starting with the measurements, is very complex and tricky. Which measurement is "right"?

Ultimately, only your own ears can be the judge of that. If you are able to go to live concerts of acoustic music, that should give you a basis to decide which comes closer to live sound, which is the real objective here. Trying to "optimize for best sound" via measurements is, I believe, impossible.

Reread my post.
I specifically said that the tests should have a series of output curves.
1. Frequency sweep of the frequency response of the listening room indicating the targets needing improvement such as LF peaks/nodes
2. Curve indicating the specific EQ adjustments such as frequency point & boost/cut, slope for the target improvements
3. Curve showing the final transfer function for each brand of EQ software

Next the consumer can review each of the curves and evaluate whether or not the specific EQ changes actually improves or not the final response for the listening room. Again by using the Pre-outs as the data source, the amplifiers are removed from the component chain.. This info simply provide more data of comparing 1 brand to another before deciding which one to purchase..

Also no brand needs to be mentioned, keep in mind the objective of the testing would be to inform the consumer What frequencies and parameters the Room EQ software is actually manipulating.. And compare this to other brands..
Think about this as providing the same type of competitive comparison information one uses when comparing loudspeakers, amplifiers. As one becomes more aware and sees the actual end-result of running some of the more popular EQ softwares they would be greatly surprised..
Especially for some of the more frequently mentioned ones..

As stated previously, my intent is not to bash 1 brand over another but to provide a technical disclosure about what the Room EQ schemes actually do to final system's frequency response...
Although some user may accept the premise that the auto Room EQ software delivers the most accurate system performance..
I do not..

Just my $0.02..

How could the consumer decide if the brands were not revealed?

Jeff

edit: I see that Noah already teed off on this one ...

So far three people don't understand this. Perhaps you're overloading the word "brand" or something else but it's not clear.

There are other problems as well but that's the most obvious one.

Since this is peripheral to using the Pro Kit I'll stop now.

In my room (and I suspect in general) the dramatic effects described don't happen. Of course I've looked at sweeps taken from the Audyssey measurement points. The differences are small. The differences between the three fronts are much greater.


I don't think everyone has a binary view of things. I certainly don't.

Perhaps I was unclear. The way you compare is to take your first three Pro measurements from the same spot. Load those filters and then compare to a sweep.


Exactly . A common compaint among the cognoscenti is the need to be exacting to get ideal output.

Well ... okay.

I've taken some pains to do multiple pro runs as well as "stacking" measurements (take three, stop, add three more, stop ... repeat). In my (small) room things don't change much. Sweeps (averaged or not) with Audyssey off versus on clearly show the improvement. Except when Audyssey fails and I've had it fail in a way that isn't quickly exposed by casual listening although it's immediately obvious with a sweep. So I always check after the first three.

Very quickly one realizes that even slightly different mic positions yields different .. sometimes more than slightly different ... results. As long as there is MultEQ and Pro kits, I will have them in my theater, but to be too cemented to reference when the results can be changed so easily puts the lie to the very meaning of reference.

What sayeth you, Gary J, to that?

Jeff