or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › The AUDYSSEY SOUNDS HORRIBLE THREAD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The AUDYSSEY SOUNDS HORRIBLE THREAD  

post #1 of 57
Thread Starter 
Post your horror experiences about Auddssey sound quality.
post #2 of 57
98% of the receivers on the market, even the most expensive, have amplifiers that cost about $30 per channel to make and simply do not sound very good. The lousy sound of these receivers is not the fault of Audessy; it can't make a pig fly.

Audessy is an attempt to get these cheap amplifiers to sound as good as possible, without actually going to the trouble and expense of making a better product. People expect it to do more than it can, and are naturally disappointed. Cheap crap + Audessy is still cheap crap.

If you actually want a decent-sounding receiver, spend the money and buy a Cambridge Audio 650R, which actually HAS some decent-sounding amplifiers and puts out 100 watts per channel with all seven channels driven. It has a power supply rated at 1500 watts; 3 times as large as most receivers on the market. Home Theater magazine tested it and said it is the best-sounding receiver on the market; it is!




Quote:
Originally Posted by joehonest View Post

Post your horror experiences about Auddssey sound quality.
post #3 of 57
LOL, is this for real?

In all truth, I would definitely have a lot to add, if we're talking about just regular MultEQ XT. I had it on both my Denon AVR-4806CI and AVP-A1HDCI (before I upgraded it to XT32). Audyssey XT sucked. Weird cupped hands effect, and everything seemed very "artificial". I couldn't stand it. I tried, and got the same results in two different rooms, with two different units.

XT32 on the other hand, is totally transparent. I have it now in my main room (AVP w/upgrade) and AVR-4311CI in the living room. All the negatives I heard have totally been overcome via XT32. Also, I really like Dyn EQ and Volume.
post #4 of 57
This is hilarious. He reseved 2 more spots even though there is not even any info in the first post.


Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post

98% of the receivers on the market, even the most expensive, have amplifiers that cost about $30 per channel to make and simply do not sound very good. The lousy sound of these receivers is not the fault of Audessy; it can't make a pig fly.

Audessy is an attempt to get these cheap amplifiers to sound as good as possible, without actually going to the trouble and expense of making a better product. People expect it to do more than it can, and are naturally disappointed. Cheap crap + Audessy is still cheap crap.

If you actually want a decent-sounding receiver, spend the money and buy a Cambridge Audio 650R, which actually HAS some decent-sounding amplifiers and puts out 100 watts per channel with all seven channels driven. It has a power supply rated at 1500 watts; 3 times as large as most receivers on the market. Home Theater magazine tested it and said it is the best-sounding receiver on the market; it is!

Home Theater is just as susceptible to bias as you are. If you don't believe me look at the May and June issues. The Marantz 6006 is a clone of the Denon 3312, same amps and everything. The 6006 got a 5/5 for audio performance and the Denon 3312 got 4/5. So I would try running your own test on these receivers instead of reading magazines and then preaching what you read. Also since Home Theater gave the Marantz a better performance score than your precious 650R you need to go out and buy one and start telling everybody on the forum that its the best receiver ever and they need to get one too.
post #5 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjpearce023 View Post

This is hilarious. He reseved 2 more spots even thought there is not even any info in the first post.

What's funnier - that or the thread title in ALL CAPS
post #6 of 57
My system/room took a huge leap up in performance when I bought my Onkyo 885 with MultEQ XT. I lived with that for a while and then added an SVS AS-EQ1 (Audyssey Subwoofer Equalizer), and that made a dramatic improvement in my subs' performance. About two years later, I upgraded my 885 to an Onk 5508 with MultEQ XT 32 and, holy smokes!, my system leaped up again in performance.

I also have an Audyssey Pro Kit and do calibrations with that over the consumer Audyssey. Same results - going from consumer to Pro iced and already good performance.

Surround/front integration and subwoofer/main channel integration, at each bump in Audyssey technology, improves.

If your Audyssey calibration sounds HORRIBLE, it is user error. Only a poor craftsman blames his tools.

Jeff
post #7 of 57
I have to say I prefer whatever Harman Kardon uses over the Audyssey in my newer Integra.
post #8 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

My system/room took a huge leap up in performance when I bought my Onkyo 885 with MultEQ XT. I lived with that for a while and then added an SVS AS-EQ1 (Audyssey Subwoofer Equalizer), and that made a dramatic improvement in my subs' performance. About two years later, I upgraded my 885 to an Onk 5508 with MultEQ XT 32 and, holy smokes!, my system leaped up again in performance.

I also have an Audyssey Pro Kit and do calibrations with that over the consumer Audyssey. Same results - going from consumer to Pro iced and already good performance.

Surround/front integration and subwoofer/main channel integration, at each bump in Audyssey technology, improves.

If your Audyssey calibration sounds HORRIBLE, it is user error. Only a poor craftsman blames his tools.

Jeff

I know you have spent a lot of time doing all your calibrations and I am sure it sounds great.I think that most that have Audyssey, only read the original owners guide instructions and do not do the calibration corect, and do not even know if they have a great sounding system, but asume they do have one.So a large number of pepole are not using the FAQ guide and maybe are doing the Audyssey calibration wrong, or wrong for your room. You will never really know unless you can measure it.I have done many Audyssey calibrations and still think there is somthing there that is not right, so maybe I will turn it off
post #9 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomefs View Post

I know you have spent a lot of time doing all your calibrations and I am sure it sounds great.I think that most that have Audyssey, only read the original owners guide instructions and do not do the calibration corect, and do not even know if they have a great sounding system, but asume they do have one.So a large number of pepole are not using the FAQ guide and maybe are doing the Audyssey calibration wrong, or wrong for your room. You will never really know unless you can measure it.I have done many Audyssey calibrations and still think there is somthing there that is not right, so maybe I will turn it off

The manufacturers' instructions on setting up Audyssey are, generally, lame. But they are written by the manufacturer. And some times the manufacturers do not take Audyssey's advice on things - crossover assignment for example.

Independently measuring a room/system is far too much to expect of most people. But when a calibration results in an obvious problem (yes, it happens), and following the AVS member-created guides doesn't fix it, measuring can be helpful.

It's a tool. It's not perfect. Help is available. If someone has a problem that can't be fixed, short of them hiring a professional, they should simply turn Audyssey off. It's not like they are any further behind for not using it.

Jeff
post #10 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post

98% of the receivers on the market, even the most expensive, have amplifiers that cost about $30 per channel to make and simply do not sound very good. The lousy sound of these receivers is not the fault of Audessy; it can't make a pig fly.

Audessy is an attempt to get these cheap amplifiers to sound as good as possible, without actually going to the trouble and expense of making a better product. People expect it to do more than it can, and are naturally disappointed. Cheap crap + Audessy is still cheap crap.

If you actually want a decent-sounding receiver, spend the money and buy a Cambridge Audio 650R, which actually HAS some decent-sounding amplifiers and puts out 100 watts per channel with all seven channels driven. It has a power supply rated at 1500 watts; 3 times as large as most receivers on the market. Home Theater magazine tested it and said it is the best-sounding receiver on the market; it is!

Not this guy again.... you always seem to pop up and rave about the Cambridge. No matter how good the amp, it will not account for crappy room acoustics.
post #11 of 57
well, this ought to be interesting...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

What's funnier - that or the thread title in ALL CAPS

i guess he wanted to ensure that everyone got the message that he was REALLY SERIOUS about how horrible it is...
post #12 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

well, this ought to be interesting...



i guess he wanted to ensure that everyone got the message that he was REALLY SERIOUS about how horrible it is...

I'm sure Audyssey is worried because Joe is honest and he is also "the Last word in Audio"!
post #13 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by nismo604 View Post

Not this guy again.... you always seem to pop up and rave about the Cambridge. No matter how good the amp, it will not account for crappy room acoustics.

Cambridge makes great gear. Post on equipment and not a member's forum posting habits.

You, too, mjpearce023.

Post how you hate or love Audyssey if you want, but don't attack a member who has a different opinion than yours.
post #14 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Cambridge makes great gear. Post on equipment and not a member's forum posting habits.

You, too, mjpearce023.

Post how you hate or love Audyssey if you want, but don't attack a member who has a different opinion than yours.

I never said anything bad about Cambridge. I have no problem with what someone else likes but trashing others gear is going too far. Commsysman has done this over and over again without any facts to stand on. I can let opinion slide but what is the point of posting comments like this over and over again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post

98% of the receivers on the market, even the most expensive, have amplifiers that cost about $30 per channel to make and simply do not sound very good. The lousy sound of these receivers is not the fault of Audessy; it can't make a pig fly.

I am happy for anyone who likes the receiver they own but he shouldn't post stuff like this unless he can back it up and trust me, he can't. I like my Denon 3311 but I don't go to every thread stating that every other receiver on the market sucks and everyone needs to buy what I own. If I did I would expect people to flame me because that is not what AVS is for.
post #15 of 57
I will admit, with previous Denon receivers I wasn't terribly impressed, but with the 4311 and XT32 I did no tweaking whatsoever after running Audyssey, and am much more pleased than I ever thought. The big difference between the two, other than technology, was a thorough read-through of the Audyssey FAQ and an understanding of both the process and the potential bottlenecks. Fortunately I had none, but my preparation in advance helped. Probably what helped more than anything was level matching all speakers before going in - whether this sounded good or not.

I'm guessing it's user error that has tripped up Joe's satisfaction, but I also caught this in one of his previous posts in the official Audyssey thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by joehonest View Post

I've used a camera tripod and mic, weight on soft pillow. I tried different centers, all the centers at times sounded hollow with Audyssey, and soild with Audyssey off. My speaker are not matched in any way, brand, age and type. With some tricks it does sound acceptable. Why would Audyssey make the center sound hollow, when the speaker is not a hollow sounding speaker ?

Audyssey is not going to help anyone with mismatched speakers (if I am reading this correctly), and is quite probably why this thread title is both extreme and in all caps

In other news - wow, Cambridge Audio? What a surprise!

Carry on.
post #16 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post

Audessy is an attempt to get these cheap amplifiers to sound as good as possible, without actually going to the trouble and expense of making a better product. People expect it to do more than it can, and are naturally disappointed. Cheap crap + Audessy is still cheap crap.

Audyssey along with MCACC, YPAO, Trinnov, ARC, etc. are attempts to take room interaction out of the sound. Even a room with excellent treatments will still influence the sound.
post #17 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by joehonest View Post

Post your horror experiences about Auddssey sound quality.

I too think Auddssey is horrible.


Now, on the other hand, Audyssey is a nifty feature.
post #18 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post

98% of the receivers on the market, even the most expensive, have amplifiers that cost about $30 per channel to make and simply do not sound very good. The lousy sound of these receivers is not the fault of Audessy; it can't make a pig fly.

Audessy is an attempt to get these cheap amplifiers to sound as good as possible, without actually going to the trouble and expense of making a better product. People expect it to do more than it can, and are naturally disappointed. Cheap crap + Audessy is still cheap crap.

If you actually want a decent-sounding receiver, spend the money and buy a Cambridge Audio 650R, which actually HAS some decent-sounding amplifiers and puts out 100 watts per channel with all seven channels driven. It has a power supply rated at 1500 watts; 3 times as large as most receivers on the market. Home Theater magazine tested it and said it is the best-sounding receiver on the market; it is!

You might have a little more credibility - not a lot, but a little - if you actually knew how to spell the thing you criticize.

As for your power analysis, who actually uses that much power? I know I don't, so it's a moot point.
post #19 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnatalli View Post


Audyssey along with MCACC, YPAO, Trinnov, ARC, etc. are attempts to take room interaction out of the sound. Even a room with excellent treatments will still influence the sound.

Any room correction can't produce miracles. The better room is treated acoustically, the better results you get after correction is applied. What all these systems do for you is making sound in typical living room acceptable. But you can always go further.
post #20 of 57
reserved
post #21 of 57
LOL this is giving me a good laugh
post #22 of 57
^^

A poll would have been much more comical!
post #23 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethawk View Post


Originally Posted by joehonest
I've used a camera tripod and mic, weight on soft pillow. I tried different centers, all the centers at times sounded hollow with Audyssey, and soild with Audyssey off. My speaker are not matched in any way, brand, age and type. With some tricks it does sound acceptable. Why would Audyssey make the center sound hollow, when the speaker is not a hollow sounding speaker ?

Nice catch-I'm shocked that Audyssey can't make this Frankensystem sound phenomenal .
post #24 of 57
This thread is nothing but a waste of bandwidth. Bashing a product in public, any product should be against the principles of AVSForum.com, IMHO. Calls for an infraction for all those who have participated here so far, including myself for not being able to keep silent, yet just became part of the problem.

Mods, please?
post #25 of 57
not to worry: this thread has the attention of the moderators

in the meantime please limit posts to technical issues
post #26 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by joehonest View Post

Post your horror experiences about Auddssey sound quality.

Spelling errors.
post #27 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrubin View Post

not to worry: this thread has the attention of the moderators

in the meantime please limit posts to technical issues

Very well.

Does audyssey suck? I don't think so but ill admit it didn't do much when I ran it incorrectly. After spending time asking questions here and talking with local ht friends I was able to rerun audyssey "correctly" and now it made everything sound so much better. Steve Holt would agree to!

And think about commys, audyssey is room correction not amp correction. Put your cambridge in a odd room it stil won't sound good. The room can change everything and audyssey tries to correct for that. It never said it does magic for "cheap" amps. Don't like what it does? Well forgo it but doesn't mean it sucks.
post #28 of 57
members could also post positive observations just to add some balance to the thread
post #29 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrubin View Post

members could also post positive observations just to add some balance to the thread

Wouldn't those be off-topic?
post #30 of 57
Mcacc,ypao and Audysey all get it wrong. Too bright and they suck the life out of the midrange area along with bloated bass. I had my system (Onkyo 5008,sms1 sub eq,svs cylinder subs) professionally calibrated by Umr,Jeff Meier, and I can tell you that it makes a huge difference.He is not a big fan of any auto cals either. As an audio engineer for some 30 years plus tons of on the job experience, i believe him fully. My ears agree . I attached a graph of what "pocket rta" app showed me on my ipad after he calibrated (pocket rta set to no weighting). I did this playing pink noise from an avia II audio test disk from all 5 speakers just like he did with his own test disc and equipment. The attached graph shows the results. This is what a professional cal job with professional equipment looks like using pocket rta app.

If you dl pocket rta on your device, play back pink noise on all 5 channels, you can manually adjust your receivers EQ to emulate my graph. This will be a very good approxiamation of a pro calibrated system. Much,much better than its built in auto cal system.

Remember, he manually calibrated the system with his equipment. All I did was measure his results with my equipment ( pocket rta and avia2 disc). Set pocket rta to "no weighting" to get the your EQ results to look like this. I tried this on my sons system and it worked beautifully . We a/b'd audyssey results vs. our manual settings for hours. Just smoked the auto cal results. Everything more natural and pleasing .This is not to say your system will be the equivalent of a pro calibrated system,but I'm confident the results will be better than any of the auto cal systems including xt32.If you listen to a variety of material (cd,vinyl,movies)and have a good ear, you should Discover the same thing.

Attachment 245907
LL
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › The AUDYSSEY SOUNDS HORRIBLE THREAD