Originally Posted by beastaudio
Originally Posted by kbarnes701
I am a huge Audyssey fan too (and my sig is even more revealing than Feri's
) but I agree with you. Audyssey is just a tool and like any tool, in the right hands it can be made to perform better. Audyssey is great for the average guy who just wants to run a few chirps and let the software get him a reasonably good result, right out of the box. In its XT32 form, it is very, very good. But not perfect.
Yes, this is exactly what I am thinking too. A couple of additional filters and I'd be flatter as well. Got to be a worthwhile objective surely?
Absolutely!!! Last night I did some measuring, moving, and distance/XO adjustments, just to see what I could come up with over an hour or so of tweaking. I can post graphs this evening, but essentially, with just a couple filters (XO region especially) I was able to get the best response I have ever seen between all my speakers. I meant to post some graphs, but I got sucked in to just sitting and listening for a while and was more than pleased with what I came up with. The biggest thing I noticed though, was the Audyssey sweep I did last night was DRAMATICALLY different from the one I did previously (at least to my ears, I didn't measure the last response). Bottom line, it kinda goes to prove that your results, all things being equal, can be quite different between Audyssey testings, and for that, I think additional eQ is certainly beneficial to keep your naked response closer to the final objective to begin with.
Yes, I think it is wrong for anyone to believe that Audyssey can never be improved upon. In fact I know it is wrong because I (and many others) have improved on Audyssey's results. For example, Audyssey rarely gets the sub distances absolutely correct and by tweaking them post-calibration, almost everyone who has tried this has reported an improvement in the FR at the vital XO region. Of course you do need measuring equipment and the knowledge of how to use it, but these days very many serious hobbyists have REW or an OmniMic and are able to make and interpret the various measurements and graphs.
Audyssey Pro even provides a built-in tool for changing the results afte calibration by way of the Curve Editor - and again it requires independent measuring gear to be able to use it.
Audyssey is terrific for those who want to simply run the calibration and then sit back and enjoy their system. They will almost certainly have made very substantial improvements compared with an un-EQd system. But, like everything, it is not perfect and those with the desire, knowledge, skill and patience can effect subtle but significant improvements by doing some careful after-calibration tweaking of the sort we have been discussing.
There are also the issues with deep, room-induced nulls, which electronic EQ can do nothing of significance about and after running Audyssey, some post-cal measuring will reveal the nulls and then one can contemplate means of eliminating or reducing them, with traps or multiple subs or room rearrangement etc. It is not fair to criticise Audyssey over something it is scientifically impossible for it to fix, and I am not doing that, but this example does show that Audyssey can simply be one tool in the chest when it comes to seeking the 'perfect response'.