or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Does Auto Room Correction Do More Good or Harm?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Does Auto Room Correction Do More Good or Harm? - Page 10

Poll Results: Does Auto Room Correction Do More Good or Harm?

 
  • 46% (281)
    In general, it does more good than harm
  • 8% (48)
    In general, it does more harm than good
  • 4% (29)
    In general, it does more good only in the bass frequencies
  • 18% (111)
    It depends on the room-correction system; some work better than others
  • 5% (31)
    It depends on the room
  • 2% (15)
    It depends on the speakers and their placement
  • 14% (84)
    I don't have enough experience to say
599 Total Votes  
post #271 of 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by webefast View Post

In a perfect world, we would have properly matched and set up high-end analog electronics and speakers in rooms with fundamentally good acoustics. I don't live in such a place, and I imagine most others don't either. The audiophile ideal (straight wire with gain) will yield the best sound quality if you are fortunate enough to have it.

I upgraded my system with a new pre/pro equipped with Audyssey MultEQ XT four years ago, the improvement in sound quality over the old pre/pro was HUGE. For my system, in my room, and with my ears, room correction does far more good than harm.



Good post. Now it's time for you to upgrade to XT32 biggrin.gif
post #272 of 368
The reason my post does fit in my opinion, is that it would seem that the corrections would best be carried out on whatever the boosted signal was as opposed to correcting and then introducing new frequencies. My disclaimer regarding my expertise could of course make this a nonsense statement but I don't think my original post is misplaced if I am correct.
post #273 of 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Bill View Post

Hello,

I am not very technically competent but I thought that maybe this would be a good opportunity to talk about something that I am sure should or is relevant to a lot of us. That is to start by making the corrections that address the deterioration of our ears hearing the higher frequencies (and perhaps some of the lower ones) as we grow older. I actually spoke to someone at Audyssey a few years back and he indicated that they were entertaining the idea but I have never heard or read of anything of that nature being released. I actually believe it was the founder of the company.

I know some of the objections such as everyone is different but I use my theater with my wife 99% of the time and quite honestly she probably wouldn't recognize the difference.

Perhaps those of you whose ears are something less than perfect may have some suggestions, jump on the band wagon or???

While I'm on roll, another thing that I notice is that the vocals either recorded or on live shows almost always are drowned out by the band. It would be great to actually understand all the words being sung. Perhaps a vocal boost switch?? Remember I said I wasn't that technically competent!

Thanks for reading.

I've fiddled with this a bit and also spoken with Chris at Audyssey about it.  The problem is that making a correction for music/HT only creates a disparity and a conflict between that and the rest of the real-world listening.  Things sound "real" because they sound like most of real life as that is our reference.  Some years back, I worked on making a correction filter, based on a PEQ, for a friend with severe HF loss as well as a lower frequency "hole" in his sensitivity curves.  At first, his eyes lit up and he was ecstatic about hearing music "so real" again.  However, within a week, he had discarded it because of the "wrenching disparity" (his words) between the corrected sound and our common reference, real life.

 

Undoubtedly, some of this has to do with the imperfections of the system but when he lost interest, so did I.  Use your tone controls ad lib.

post #274 of 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

Automatic room correction can help remove the influence of the room on the sound, and can help smooth out interactions between speakers and rooms that compromise neutral response.

Auto Room Correction technically doesn't remove the room's influence - it tries to counteract the room's influence through EQ, Time Delay etc.

IMO the acoustics of the room should be addressed in the physical domain first. This means measuring the room and getting an idea of what frequencies are causing the most harm.
Experiment with placement of the speakers, subwoofer(s), and seating arrangement - Remeasure the room.
Then address these issues with the appropriate physical acoustic devices - i.e. bass traps, acoustic diffusion, absorption panels etc.
With the physical acoustic devices in place take another measurement and see what can be improved by fine tuning all the above.
Repeat this process as needed.
Once the room is dialed in the physical domain - it's time to move to the digital/electrical domain.
Time to run the Auto Room Correction EQ. This will give the finishing touches to your audio/theater system.

From Ideal to less than ideal in descending order:
  1. Listening Room with acoustic panels/treatment plus Auto Room Correction EQ = Ideal
  2. Listening Room with Acoustic Panels/treatment only = much better than nothing and still better than just Auto Room Correction with EQ
  3. Listening Room with Auto Room Correction EQ = much better than nothing
  4. Listening Room with none of the above = not reaching potential
post #275 of 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by heavystarch View Post

From Ideal to less than ideal in descending order:
  1. Listening Room with acoustic panels/treatment plus Auto Room Correction EQ = Ideal
  2. Listening Room with Acoustic Panels/treatment only = much better than nothing and still better than just Auto Room Correction with EQ
  3. Listening Room with Auto Room Correction EQ = much better than nothing
  4. Listening Room with none of the above = not reaching potential

This might be the case, but in terms of adoption I think #3 would represent 99.debatable fraction% of auto-room-correction users. Bass traps and acoustic panels? Less than 1 in 100 mess with those things (though I salute their dedication!).

MultiEQ XT was a revelation when I first configured it in a crappy narrow reflective hallway in 2011. It still amazes me how effortlessly it can transform a living space. I wouldn't buy or recommend an amplifier without it. Well, unless we're talking about Decware tube headphone amps. wink.gif
post #276 of 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by heavystarch View Post

Auto Room Correction technically doesn't remove the room's influence - it tries to counteract the room's influence through EQ, Time Delay etc.

A distinction without a difference. The statement is still true, even though something else is also true.

Nobody's suggesting that room treatments aren't effective. They are, but that doesn't mean room correction is not effective, which is the topic of the thread.

I hate it when people quote me, immediately contradict what I said, and then proceed to agree with it later. Terrible debating technique.
post #277 of 368

Interesting how about Trinnov?

post #278 of 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

A distinction without a difference. The statement is still true, even though something else is also true.

Nobody's suggesting that room treatments aren't effective. They are, but that doesn't mean room correction is not effective, which is the topic of the thread.

I hate it when people quote me, immediately contradict what I said, and then proceed to agree with it later. Terrible debating technique.

I focused too much on the use of the word "remove" in your comment. I think the statement would be more accurate if the word "counteract" was used in lieu of "remove".
But now I'm getting into semantics and starting a debate on the internet.



I suggested physical acoustic treatments because they address the physical domain/boundaries in ways ARC simply can't.
For me the two paths,acoustic treatments and ARC, are complementary towards the ultimate goal of higher fidelity with regards to sound reproduction.
I'm not attacking ARC nor was I defending ART(acoustic room treatments)

Hope no offense was taken as none was given.
If you're a drinking man then the first round of beers is on me! smile.gif
post #279 of 368
Nobody's suggesting that room treatments aren't effective. If there were a poll about "what's the most effective route to making a room sound great?" I imagine that the various physical methods of taming modes, nodes, resonances, and other artifacts would win. In other words, the best way to make a room sound great is to make the room sound great. And it had indeed already been mentioned many times in this very thread.

But there are myriad reasons why this isn't practical in many home settings, and so the question of whether ARC can be effective by itself is very important, and worth discussing on its own.
post #280 of 368
Anyone know why Trinnov is not available on any current gear sold for a somewhat reasonbale price? Processor demands too much? Licensing fees excessive? The Sherwood works, sort of, most of the time, but a more modern unit is needed.
post #281 of 368
The harman-kardon room EQ on my AVR-254 does more harm than good. The system sounds dull and less dynamic with it engaged. So I EQ the sub with a miniDSP. A future AVR will have XT32 just to see what the fuss is about.
post #282 of 368
I had a similar HK receiver and I didn't care for the EQ either for the same reason. I upgraded to a Denon with XT32, and it sounds dull and flat too! So have Audyssey bypass the mains and all is well.
post #283 of 368
ok! I'm surprised that XT32 was no better! Good to know, thanks!
post #284 of 368
Before you write off XT32, there are some fundamental things you can do that can mean the difference between poor or fair results to having good to great results. I recommend the Audyssey thread for anyone seriously interested in getting it right, there are some very knowledgable and helpful guys there. I know room correction is not for everyone, but it made a huge difference in my room, and now I wouldn't listen to music/movies without it engaged. It's also possible you just don't like it so YMMV.
post #285 of 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanglo View Post

I had a similar HK receiver and I didn't care for the EQ either for the same reason. I upgraded to a Denon with XT32, and it sounds dull and flat too! So have Audyssey bypass the mains and all is well.

Did you try Audyssey Reference as well as Flat curves?  What about Dynamic EQ?

post #286 of 368
Auto Room Correction is a good starting point for everyone, priceless if you have no idea what your doing. The bad part is these adjustments are only for the room, I believe it would be much better if the auto correction took more factors into account, like the listeners hearing and mood. Auto Correction could add and run more tests by making the users part of the setup tests, like testing the listeners ears and ask the user what sounds better to them,, like an eye test. Why make the room happy then the listener is the one who writes the checks...
post #287 of 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by mraub View Post

Anyone know why Trinnov is not available on any current gear sold for a somewhat reasonbale price? Processor demands too much? Licensing fees excessive? The Sherwood works, sort of, most of the time, but a more modern unit is needed.

The Trinnov in the sherwood is a VERY slimmed down version of the full software. The full suite of features I think is something in the 5 figures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joehonest View Post

Auto Room Correction is a good starting point for everyone, priceless if you have no idea what your doing. The bad part is these adjustments are only for the room, I believe it would be much better if the auto correction took more factors into account, like the listeners hearing and mood. Auto Correction could add and run more tests by making the users part of the setup tests, like testing the listeners ears and ask the user what sounds better to them,, like an eye test. Why make the room happy then the listener is the one who writes the checks...

I'd like a processor that knows how many beers I have had and adjusts the volume threshold to protect my ears and speakers. How well would that work?
post #288 of 368
A usb breathalyzer could be added, but you will need a court order biggrin.gif
post #289 of 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post


The Trinnov in the sherwood is a VERY slimmed down version of the full software. The full suite of features I think is something in the 5 figures.

 

For 8+ channels, they are.  Four channel units are in the $6-7K range.

post #290 of 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by primetimeguy View Post

Did you try Audyssey Reference as well as Flat curves?  What about Dynamic EQ?

Yes I tried every combination of options available, but opted to bypass the mains because Audyssey neuters the highs too much to my liking even on Flat.

I really do like what Audyssey does for the low frequencies though, but I don't use Dynamic EQ or Vol except on rare occasions.

I use a parametric EQ, and for the HF a target about in the upper middle of my Audyssey/no Audyssey response.
Edited by Spanglo - 8/23/13 at 11:16am
post #291 of 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

ok! I'm surprised that XT32 was no better! Good to know, thanks!

I do like what Audyssey does for the Low Frequencies, and feel it was an upgrade from the HK receiver.
post #292 of 368
I find Audyssey flat to have a nice effect on the highs for music along with Dynamic EQ for low to mid listening levels is a great combination. For movies I use Audyssey reference and also leave the Dynamic EQ on.
post #293 of 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by heavystarch View Post

I suggested physical acoustic treatments because they address the physical domain/boundaries in ways ARC simply can't. For me the two paths,acoustic treatments and ARC, are complementary towards the ultimate goal of higher fidelity with regards to sound reproduction. I'm not attacking ARC nor was I defending ART(acoustic room treatments) Hope no offense was taken as none was given. If you're a drinking man then the first round of beers is on me! smile.gif

Yes room dimension, acoustic treatment, speaker placement, seat placement and then and only then manual EQ or last resort AEQ. The only thing that should be EQed is the bass nothing else otherwise you rob the speakers of their sound!
post #294 of 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

The Trinnov in the sherwood is a VERY slimmed down version of the full software...

"Very" limited is very much an exaggeration.

The R-972 is certainly more limited, but it gets you many of the benefits of the full Trinnov implementation, at a fraction of the price tag.

For my money, this is currently the best deal in EQ by leaps.
post #295 of 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post

The R-972 is certainly more limited, but it gets you many of the benefits of the full Trinnov implementation, at a fraction of the price tag.
Yup, limited only in adjustability. The actual room correction algorithm in the 972 was the same as in the $13k Trinnov processor being used in professional recording studios at the time.
post #296 of 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View PostYup, limited only in adjustability. The actual room correction algorithm in the 972 was the same as in the $13k Trinnov processor being used in professional recording studios at the time.

OK but from what I have read and hear, I should stay away from the 972 as it is very unreliable and has many problems not just with Video, which I don't care but also with Audio!!!

post #297 of 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

OK but from what I have read and hear, I should stay away from the 972 as it is very unreliable and has many problems not just with Video, which I don't care but also with Audio!!!

"Very unreliable" and "many problems?" Where did you read this?

Other than a minor audio delay when switching codecs, I am not aware of any other widespread issues.
post #298 of 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

from what I have read and hear, I should stay away from the 972
You probably should. Most everyone else will be fine with it.
post #299 of 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post

"Very unreliable" and "many problems?" Where did you read this?

Other than a minor audio delay when switching codecs, I am not aware of any other widespread issues.

Good then, I will give it a try!
post #300 of 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Good then, I will give it a try!

Before you do, do read http://www.avsforum.com/t/1179978/sherwood-r-972-user-thread/2910

Also, keep in mind that in some situations, the Trinnov microphone is a bit more finicky at picking up and processing the speakers in the room, while I've never had a problem with Audyssey.

I personally love what Trinnov does and now that I am set up, would not want to be without it, but there are others who have had less positive experience.

ARC is another option, BTW, and many would argue that it is better than Audyssey XT32.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Community News & Polls
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Does Auto Room Correction Do More Good or Harm?