or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Should we be recommending Audyssey so much?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should we be recommending Audyssey so much? - Page 2

post #31 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin C Brown View Post

I have always thought that Audyssey should have a very easy to implement option, of just EQ'ing the room say below a user selectable point of 300-500 Hz. I also think that their software should offer higher levels of RLO than 15 dB too. Give the customer more choice!

Agree completely. Not only that but it would have freed up the DSP memory to be able to maintain room correction for signals > 44kHz.

Cheers.
post #32 of 56
Thread Starter 
There's something about broadband room correction that people find attractive. It probably comes from alarmism from single point in-room measurements.

Still, I agree that options would be nice.
post #33 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin C Brown View Post

I have always thought that Audyssey should have a very easy to implement option, of just EQ'ing the room say below a user selectable point of 300-500 Hz....

Give the customer more choice!

+1

I just upgraded my 2-channel music player software Amarra to Amarra Symphony with iRC. The Room Correction used is Dirac. After measuring (I use a UMIK-1) one can tailor the suggested filter as one wishes, including setting the frequencies one wishes to correct. Hence, one can only correct between 30 Hz and 300 Hz (or any other limit) if one wishes. I have to experiment more, but that is a nice feature for sure.

Below the room-dependent frequency where it reacts and causes nulls and peaks (250-300 Hz) DRC is a must for tight and even bass. But even then, it might be necessary to add another sub or change the sub position or the listening spot in order to receive even bass.

Anything above 300 Hz should ideally be treated with a mixture of absorption or diffusion with a working order that covers the whole frequency range from 300 Hz. Hence 2 inch thick first reflection panels are to thin. It all starts with good speakers of course...
post #34 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post

Both Dr. Toole and Dr. Olive, from Harman have stated repeatedly that above 300-400Hz you are trying to compensate for the speakers and not the room. If you have well-engineered speakers they should be left alone above that frequency.
You have to balance what they said with the fact that they both helped develop a room correction system (ARCOS) that works full range.



Note the amount of filtering above 300Hz, even past 5kHz.
post #35 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

You have to balance what [Dr. Toole and Dr. Olive] said with the fact that they both helped develop a room correction system (ARCOS) that works full range. [image deleted] Note the amount of filtering above 300Hz, even past 5kHz.

Good point, but that system also has the axial and polar response of the loudspeakers baked in, right?
post #36 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Good point, but that system also has the axial and polar response of the loudspeakers baked in, right?
For the JBL Synthesis version, there is an option to actively improve the response of Synthesis brand speakers beyond what can be done passively (as well as the option to compensate for popular AT screen models). The versions they planned on using on Lexicon and Mark Levinson gear were speaker agnostic (e.g., Harman first used it on a B&W 802 for Sean Olive's room correction comparison). Whether used with Synthesis brand speakers or not, the correction is full range.
post #37 of 56
I made these point on another thread too:

Audyssey cannot tell you where the best spot for your subwoofers will be in your room.

Audyssey cannot tell you if you need to adjust your speaker's toe in, and positioning.

Audyssey cannot make poor speakers better.

Audyssey cannot correct nulls since they can't be corrected with equalization. Subwoofers position, room shape, bass traps, etc. are needed for this job.

I would wager that 99% of the people that have a receiver with Audyssey in it have no clue what exactly it is for. I would wager that the concept of room correction is lost on most people. I can imagine that Audyssey might make the listening experience better in certain setups.


General principles:

1. Buy the best speakers possible for the budget.
2. Consider room design if that is an option with sufficient room treatment options if it is a dedicated home theater. Proper room setup makes a MASSIVE difference that has to be heard to be believed. I would say that 90% of stereo and home theater demos in stores are not setup very well from what I have seen. In store demos of speakers without the proper treated environment are unfortunately not a great place to try out speakers.
3. Setup subwoofer location and equalization completely independent of Audyssey using methods described on AVS forums in the past. Subwoofer crawls and sound measurement software come to mind.
4. Run Audyssey to help setup speaker distances and levels of your surround setup. On the Marantz 8801 at least, you can consider skipping equalization of main speakers on the Audyssey setup.

Happy Hobbying!
post #38 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post

I made these point on another thread too:

I fully agree.

And Audyssey cannot move the speakers around to a better location in the room.

You only have to look through 'Let's see pics of your stereo setup!' thread here to see plenty of examples of speakers thrown at a room in a way that fits the decor more than anything. I have lost count of the amount of times I have seen one speaker jammed in a corner or right up against the side wall with the other speaker in the middle of the wall length in free space. Just imagine the difference in EQ Audyssey must be applying trying to get the L/R speakers to sound anything like each other again!
post #39 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

You have to balance what they said with the fact that they both helped develop a room correction system (ARCOS) that works full range.



Note the amount of filtering above 300Hz, even past 5kHz.

Agreed, perhaps this was not a well-engineered speaker wink.gif

Cheers.
post #40 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by SyntheticShrimp View Post

That looks just about right. I'm not surprised it sounds so good.
Thanks!

The current state of room correction is really strange. I'm not opposed to equalization. In fact, I think bass equalization is practically a requirement for high fidelity unless you get really lucky. Weirdly, IIRC most versions of YPAO and MCACC don't equalize below a certain frequency (65Hz? please correct me if I'm wrong). This is one place that should be equalized. It seems that most of the room correction kits have some avoidable flaws.

ARC, with its ability to select a maximum EQ frequency, is a nice tool. If you can take measurements you can also manually equalize the modal region. MiniDSP seems like a cool option.

I use the open DRC an from mini dsp to eq both of my Seaton Submersives pre Audyssey multi eq on my Denon 3313. This is after I rotated my room to get symmetrical and found the best sub locations which happened to be the 1/4 and 3/4 point on the front wall. Sdurani truly deserves the credit smile.gif
But I can get a fairly nice sub eq just by adding cutting filters. I then send it to Audyssey to put the final touches on. I haven't noticed this midrange boost on my measurements. Is it XT 32 only?
post #41 of 56
This is exactly similar to my own experience with Audyssey, I have tried 2 versions, and they both fail to produce a balanced frequency response - it sounds too bright.

The last one I tried is the XT32 in a newer AVR, it is better than the older versions because the phase-correction (correction for early reflections) now only works below a preset frequency.
Still, it equalizes the speakers over the full frequency range, and if the speakers have controlled sound field radiation, they will sound too bright.
This is no imagination, you can easily see it on the frequency response, from 1K - 2K and up the level is around 3dB too loud.

This could very easily have been fixed by letting the user disable equalization above around 1K.

It actually works well to improve the response in to upper bass - lower midrange, where reflections from boundaries near the speakers cause problems that otherwise could be very difficult to fix.

I recently wrote an article on How to set up a Home Theater Sound System, and when briefly talking about room correction systems, I found the easiest way was to recommend that room-correction can be disabled, if one finds that the resulting sound is not quite what was expected.
post #42 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okv View Post

This is exactly similar to my own experience with Audyssey, I have tried 2 versions, and they both fail to produce a balanced frequency response - it sounds too bright.

The last one I tried is the XT32 in a newer AVR, it is better than the older versions because the phase-correction (correction for early reflections) now only works below a preset frequency.
Still, it equalizes the speakers over the full frequency range, and if the speakers have controlled sound field radiation, they will sound too bright.
This is no imagination, you can easily see it on the frequency response, from 1K - 2K and up the level is around 3dB too loud.

This could very easily have been fixed by letting the user disable equalization above around 1K.

It actually works well to improve the response in to upper bass - lower midrange, where reflections from boundaries near the speakers cause problems that otherwise could be very difficult to fix.

I recently wrote an article on How to set up a Home Theater Sound System, and when briefly talking about room correction systems, I found the easiest way was to recommend that room-correction can be disabled, if one finds that the resulting sound is not quite what was expected.

Do you have a plot of the frequency response?  I know some have complained about the sound being too bright post-Audyssey.  For me I do notice that from 500hz-5khz it appears to be about 3db higher as well.  But either boosting my bass and sub 3db or enabling DynEQ gets rid of the problem.  Even without I wouldn't say it was too bright, rather just lacking in bass.  

 

Are you using the Audyssey reference curve rather than Music/Flat?

post #43 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by primetimeguy View Post

Do you have a plot of the frequency response?  I know some have complained about the sound being too bright post-Audyssey.  For me I do notice that from 500hz-5khz it appears to be about 3db higher as well.  But either boosting my bass and sub 3db or enabling DynEQ gets rid of the problem.  Even without I wouldn't say it was too bright, rather just lacking in bass.  

Are you using the Audyssey reference curve rather than Music/Flat?

I think the first post is very good, it explains what is going on quite well, basically you get a wrong balance because the in-room response is used as reference for equalization to a flat target.

A frequency response will look quite different depending on how you measure it, and how you process the measurement data.
With speakers like mine, Audyssey will measure the response as having 3-4db too low level above 1-2KHz, due to the speakers extremely short impulse-response and controlled dispersion.

Of course you can try to make things work, as an end user that may be an acceptable solution, and in some cases you may end up with something that works - depending on speakers, room and placement.
The target curve Flat will use a flat target, the Audyssey target has the midrange-dip and a high-frequency roll-off.
For a speaker with good power response and reasonably flat on-axis response it is not likely that it is possible to get a reasonable result with Audyssey, at least unless you use an additional external equalizer, but why would you use Audyssey in the first place then.

I have plots showing this, however I would have to look into what I can and can not publish, and also structure the information, so that requires more effort than I am willing to put in to someone elses flawed product.
I measured and analyzed this because I must know how the things I develop works with the equipment people actually have, and I wanted it to work, but I ended up with recommending to disable Audyssey for these speakers.
post #44 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okv View Post

Of course you can try to make things work, as an end user that may be an acceptable solution, and in some cases you may end up with something that works - depending on speakers, room and placement.
The target curve Flat will use a flat target, the Audyssey target has the midrange-dip and a high-frequency roll-off.
For a speaker with good power response and reasonably flat on-axis response it is not likely that it is possible to get a reasonable result with Audyssey, at least unless you use an additional external equalizer, but why would you use Audyssey in the first place then.

FWIW I think you may have hit the nail on the head. I have Revel Concerta speakers which measure very well as can be seen here as measured by Soundstage Magazine using the NRC's anechoic chamber. I could not achieve a good solution with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and my horrible listening space and my Denon 4311CI. I was one of those 4311CI owners who experienced the boosted high frequencies. I went through two Audyssey microphones just to be able to rule out that as a problem and the results between them were the same. Because I also had the Paradigm Perfect Bass Kit (PBK, which is kinda a special subwoofer version of Anthem's ARC) to equalize my subwoofers I was able to turn off Audyssey completely. Without the PBK I may have had to live with Audyssey. My room was/is really bad for acoustics so I was hoping to only focus on the frequencies between 60-400Hz but with that version of Audyssey you can't restrict its frequency range. You had to buy the Pro version kit which would have been like another $700 etc. As I already had very good measuring equipment I didn't want to continue with Audyssey and turned if off on the Denon. When I had the buggy Anthem MRX 500 Anthem's ARC was very good as I would tell it to stop applying ARC above 400Hz.

Right now I switch between no EQ on the Yamaha CX-A5000 (because the subwoofers are already equalized) and manual PEQ using the measurements from the Yamaha YPAO RSC as well as my own and then creating the appropriate cuts/boosts up to 300Hz. One big issue I have seen, and Dr. Rich at Secrets of Home Theater in his article: Anthem Room Correction (ARC) System - Part 2 - Including a Subwoofer has reported, is the requirement for the AVR/Room EQ to create the right crossover transition blend between the subwoofers and front speakers:
Quote:
By far, the most significant sonic issue for acoustic music when a subwoofer is deployed occurs around the crossover from the subwoofer to the main speaker. Adding a subwoofer to a system using a standard bass management system without a room EQ in the loop (sub and main channels) degrades the flatness of the response in this critical area. At a minimum, the in-room transition band of the low-pass and high-pass filters should track the shape of a fourth-order Linkwitz–Riley (4th order LR - more on these two designers work is below) filter to about 20dB down. With a 4th LR at 80Hz crossover, both speakers are active between 60Hz and 110Hz (-10dB points), a frequency range that is populated with a variety of common instruments playing throughout the score.

A typical bass management system provides only a second-order filter for the main speaker, which will not sum to flat, even in an anechoic chamber. Developers of standard bass management systems (circa 1995) assumed the main channel speaker will rolloff naturally with a slope of 12dB response exactly below the crossover frequency, so they added only a 2nd order filter section to create the fourth-order filter.

This will never happen. Room EQs must provide additional correction for the main speaker channel to have the correct -6dB point and transition band associated with a 4th-order LR high-pass filter. Different main channel speakers require a custom filter synthesized by the adaptive room equalizer. Once the EQ performs this function, the system is flat in an anechoic chamber, but this is only a small part of what the room EQ must do.

From my experience only Anthem's ARC did this correctly. None of the other room EQs I have tried/owned did this (Pioneer's MCACC, Audyssey MultEQ and MultEQ XT32 and YPAO RSC). And I don't understand how this can be done properly based on the way the AVR/Audyssey/YPAO etc. works. For example Audyssey does the measurements and the AVR decides the speakers (i.e. front left and right) are large. Okay, so no crossover. Audyssey recommends setting them to small with an 80Hz crossover. But the measurements haven't looked at the in-room response and the bass management slope that is most appropriate to that speaker for a smooth transition at the crossover frequency as Dr. Rich has described in the article and above. Anthem's ARC let's the user choose the most appropriate slope for rolloff as part of the targets setting. With Audyssey when people start using software to do some of their own measurements (e.g. REW, FuzzMeasure etc.) they end up modifying the distance/phase for the subwoofer so as to get a better blend between the subwoofers and the main speakers at the crossover. [portion deleted as it was incorrect]

I would be very interested in reading about your experiments and seeing your plots. smile.gif

Cheers
Edited by TKO1 - 1/5/14 at 1:02pm
post #45 of 56
Not long ago I was very close to getting myself a Denon receiver with XT32 but then I realized for the same money I could upgrade my subs to a couple of very good SVS subs. That there by itself would probably net me a more worthwhile upgrade.

So instead I am still measuring the frequency response of my room for myself and as a result I quickly learnt the importance of speaker and listening position placements. Only small amounts of PEQ were needed after that. My Yamaha AVR only has very basic manual EQ (never liked its YPAO results) but I can use a very good PEQ in JRiver for all my music playback. The only downside is that movies and TV don't get the benefit of the final touches of PEQ but it's not that big a deal to me as music playback is my main priority and I only watch couple of movies a month. But having a decent response from more optimal speaker and listening position placements in the first place means TV and movie watching without PEQ is quite good anyway.

This day and age measuring the frequency response of your room for yourself is a no brainer and even the likes of XT32 should be checked to see what it has done.
post #46 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post

FWIW I think you may have hit the nail on the head. I have Revel Concerta speakers which measure very well as can be seen here as measured by Soundstage Magazine using the NRC's anechoic chamber. I could not achieve a good solution with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and my horrible listening space and my Denon 4311CI. I was one of those 4311CI owners who experienced the boosted high frequencies. I went through two Audyssey microphones just to be able to rule out that as a problem and the results between them were the same. Because I also had the Paradigm Perfect Bass Kit (PBK, which is kinda a special subwoofer version of Anthem's ARC) to equalize my subwoofers I was able to turn off Audyssey completely. Without the PBK I may have had to live with Audyssey. My room was/is really bad for acoustics so I was hoping to only focus on the frequencies between 60-400Hz but with that version of Audyssey you can't restrict its frequency range. You had to buy the Pro version kit which would have been like another $700 etc. As I already had very good measuring equipment I didn't want to continue with Audyssey and turned if off on the Denon. When I had the buggy Anthem MRX 500 Anthem's ARC was very good as I would tell it to stop applying ARC above 400Hz.

Right now I switch between no EQ on the Yamaha CX-A5000 (because the subwoofers are already equalized) and manual PEQ using the measurements from the Yamaha YPAO RSC as well as my own and then creating the appropriate cuts/boosts up to 300Hz. One big issue I have seen, and Dr. Rich at Secrets of Home Theater in his article: Anthem Room Correction (ARC) System - Part 2 - Including a Subwoofer has reported, is the requirement for the AVR/Room EQ to create the right crossover transition blend between the subwoofers and front speakers:


From my experience only Anthem's ARC did this correctly. None of the other room EQs I have tried/owned did this (Pioneer's MCACC, Audyssey MultEQ and MultEQ XT32 and YPAO RSC). And I don't understand how this can be done properly based on the way the AVR/Audyssey/YPAO etc. works. For example Audyssey does the measurements and the AVR decides the speakers (i.e. front left and right) are large. Okay, so no crossover. Audyssey recommends setting them to small with an 80Hz crossover. But the measurements haven't looked at the in-room response and the bass management slope that is most appropriate to that speaker for a smooth transition at the crossover frequency as Dr. Rich has described in the article and above. Anthem's ARC let's the user choose the most appropriate slope for rolloff as part of the targets setting. With Audyssey when people start using software to do some of their own measurements (e.g. REW, FuzzMeasure etc.) they end up modifying the distance/phase for the subwoofer so as to get a better blend between the subwoofers and the main speakers at the crossover. But once you modify the distance setting in the AVR Audyssey turns off. A catch-22 situation.

I would be very interested in reading about your experiments and seeing your plots. smile.gif

Cheers



I can sympathize with you as far as a poor room goes because mine is pretty horrible. With proper speaker placement, heavy drapes on my windows and some properly placed acoustic panels I've dramatically improved my room. I don't feel Audyssey XT32 has to do as much because of what I've done and can do it's job much easier and IMO both movies and music are incredible through my 5.2 setup. I've never tried ARC in my room and maybe I would like it but I can't imagine my setup sounding much better and after months of manual adjustments made to my new pre/pro Audyssey blew my settings away. I think we can all nit pick about anything if we try hard enough but for me the proof is in the sound. YMMV.
post #47 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post


FWIW I think you may have hit the nail on the head. I have Revel Concerta speakers which measure very well as can be seen here as measured by Soundstage Magazine using the NRC's anechoic chamber. I could not achieve a good solution with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and my horrible listening space and my Denon 4311CI. I was one of those 4311CI owners who experienced the boosted high frequencies. I went through two Audyssey microphones just to be able to rule out that as a problem and the results between them were the same. Because I also had the Paradigm Perfect Bass Kit (PBK, which is kinda a special subwoofer version of Anthem's ARC) to equalize my subwoofers I was able to turn off Audyssey completely. Without the PBK I may have had to live with Audyssey. My room was/is really bad for acoustics so I was hoping to only focus on the frequencies between 60-400Hz but with that version of Audyssey you can't restrict its frequency range. You had to buy the Pro version kit which would have been like another $700 etc. As I already had very good measuring equipment I didn't want to continue with Audyssey and turned if off on the Denon. When I had the buggy Anthem MRX 500 Anthem's ARC was very good as I would tell it to stop applying ARC above 400Hz.

Right now I switch between no EQ on the Yamaha CX-A5000 (because the subwoofers are already equalized) and manual PEQ using the measurements from the Yamaha YPAO RSC as well as my own and then creating the appropriate cuts/boosts up to 300Hz. One big issue I have seen, and Dr. Rich at Secrets of Home Theater in his article: Anthem Room Correction (ARC) System - Part 2 - Including a Subwoofer has reported, is the requirement for the AVR/Room EQ to create the right crossover transition blend between the subwoofers and front speakers:


From my experience only Anthem's ARC did this correctly. None of the other room EQs I have tried/owned did this (Pioneer's MCACC, Audyssey MultEQ and MultEQ XT32 and YPAO RSC). And I don't understand how this can be done properly based on the way the AVR/Audyssey/YPAO etc. works. For example Audyssey does the measurements and the AVR decides the speakers (i.e. front left and right) are large. Okay, so no crossover. Audyssey recommends setting them to small with an 80Hz crossover. But the measurements haven't looked at the in-room response and the bass management slope that is most appropriate to that speaker for a smooth transition at the crossover frequency as Dr. Rich has described in the article and above. Anthem's ARC let's the user choose the most appropriate slope for rolloff as part of the targets setting. With Audyssey when people start using software to do some of their own measurements (e.g. REW, FuzzMeasure etc.) they end up modifying the distance/phase for the subwoofer so as to get a better blend between the subwoofers and the main speakers at the crossover. But once you modify the distance setting in the AVR Audyssey turns off. A catch-22 situation.

I would be very interested in reading about your experiments and seeing your plots. smile.gif

Cheers

The bolded part is not true.

post #48 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by primetimeguy View Post

The bolded part is not true.

Ok, thanks. I thought it disabled it once you changed it. Appreciate the correction.

Cheers.
post #49 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post

...

Right now I switch between no EQ on the Yamaha CX-A5000 (because the subwoofers are already equalized) and manual PEQ using the measurements from the Yamaha YPAO RSC as well as my own and then creating the appropriate cuts/boosts up to 300Hz. One big issue I have seen, and Dr. Rich at Secrets of Home Theater in his article: Anthem Room Correction (ARC) System - Part 2 - Including a Subwoofer has reported, is the requirement for the AVR/Room EQ to create the right crossover transition blend between the subwoofers and front speakers:


From my experience only Anthem's ARC did this correctly. None of the other room EQs I have tried/owned did this (Pioneer's MCACC, Audyssey MultEQ and MultEQ XT32 and YPAO RSC). And I don't understand how this can be done properly based on the way the AVR/Audyssey/YPAO etc. works. For example Audyssey does the measurements and the AVR decides the speakers (i.e. front left and right) are large. Okay, so no crossover. Audyssey recommends setting them to small with an 80Hz crossover. But the measurements haven't looked at the in-room response and the bass management slope that is most appropriate to that speaker for a smooth transition at the crossover frequency as Dr. Rich has described in the article and above. Anthem's ARC let's the user choose the most appropriate slope for rolloff as part of the targets setting. With Audyssey when people start using software to do some of their own measurements (e.g. REW, FuzzMeasure etc.) they end up modifying the distance/phase for the subwoofer so as to get a better blend between the subwoofers and the main speakers at the crossover. [portion deleted as it was incorrect]

I would be very interested in reading about your experiments and seeing your plots. smile.gif

Cheers

Yes, subwoofer integration is very important for sound quality, and it is of course correct what is stated in that article - no real world speakers in a room have a "4. order roll-off".
It is often possible to achieve a reasonable frequency response over the crossover region, but if the timing is incorrect the impulse response will be wrong, and that affects reproduction of transients.
With REW you can see both phase and timing (you can look at the step response), and that is very helpful.

Transient response in the bass will affect punch, as in how large drums sound and feel, but also impact on transients, and this is what I believe is very important for how reproduced sound is experienced.
The frequency range from around 200Hz and down seems to be critical, and I believe that if linear phase and reasonably frequency response is achieved from around 200Hz down, it would be a very real and noticeable improvement.

Getting the punch right seems to be easier, just eq the sub system to approx linear phase and desired freq response, this can be done using ordinary dsp eq, as the system tends to approach minimum phase at low frequencies.

It is also interesting to experience that it really does not help to just increase the bass level to get more impact and punch - it does not feel more impactful, it is just louder in the bass.
Nowadays I suspect that many people have never experienced the importance of transient impact, as modern recordings are so severely compressed that there are no impact left.
Newer recordings also tend to have much higher bass level, likely to try to get more liveliness and impact out of the sound, which of course does not work - you only get more rumble and boom.

Now, before wandering totally OT; what this means is, that the subwoofer system is also handled separately by its own dsp, be it a separate unit or built in to the subwoofers, and then Audyssey creates problems here as well, because its effect on the subwoofers can not be turned off.
post #50 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Not long ago I was very close to getting myself a Denon receiver with XT32 but then I realized for the same money I could upgrade my subs to a couple of very good SVS subs. That there by itself would probably net me a more worthwhile upgrade.

So instead I am still measuring the frequency response of my room for myself and as a result I quickly learnt the importance of speaker and listening position placements. Only small amounts of PEQ were needed after that. My Yamaha AVR only has very basic manual EQ (never liked its YPAO results) but I can use a very good PEQ in JRiver for all my music playback. The only downside is that movies and TV don't get the benefit of the final touches of PEQ but it's not that big a deal to me as music playback is my main priority and I only watch couple of movies a month. But having a decent response from more optimal speaker and listening position placements in the first place means TV and movie watching without PEQ is quite good anyway.

This day and age measuring the frequency response of your room for yourself is a no brainer and even the likes of XT32 should be checked to see what it has done.

Which SVS?
post #51 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin C Brown View Post

I have always thought that Audyssey should have a very easy to implement option, of just EQ'ing the room say below a user selectable point of 300-500 Hz. I also think that their software should offer higher levels of RLO than 15 dB too. Give the customer more choice!

Thread revival!!!!!

I just got sent this way by RIch and have enjoyed the read. I have harped on many of the concepts touched on in this thread in other threads including the Audyssey thread. Kevin, you sound like a prime candidate (along with myself) for the ARC correction system where you can set the upper limit to whatever you choose on how high the system attempts to EQ. There is also the option of choosing your own custom curve for the EQ so if you are not a big fan of "flat" response, then you can go in and set a house curve to cater the response even more. I have full intentions soon enough of getting a 510 or 710 and plan to experiment extensively with it. Right now I run the Marantz 8801, sans Audyssey at all, and love the sound I am getting natively from my setup. Here is the curve I am running with currently with a pretty gratuitous house curve down low smile.gif




I really like what I am hearing, and some small adjustments are still necessary in the LF range, but I plan to do that manually through my DCX2496 and see if even needed ANY form of automated REQ is even necessary. I also have a dual 31 band parametric I want to get back into the system to just fine-tune the mains. Crossover on that graph is set at 100hz btw.
post #52 of 56
Indeed, I have kept tabs on ARC from afar. I really wish they'd do a "cheaper" pre/pro than what they have now, but I do keep an eye on them.

One reason why I ended up with the 8801 I have now, is that the 7005 I had was 100% trouble free. So I just went for what I knew, and stayed the course with Marantz ...
post #53 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin C Brown View Post

Indeed, I have kept tabs on ARC from afar. I really wish they'd do a "cheaper" pre/pro than what they have now, but I do keep an eye on them.

One reason why I ended up with the 8801 I have now, is that the 7005 I had was 100% trouble free. So I just went for what I knew, and stayed the course with Marantz ...

I had moved up through the ranks of the Denon Products and needing XLR for my subs (and the benefit found using them for all speakers too) I moved to the 8801 for that reason. I really like the 8801 a lot, I am just intrigued by the ARC processing and if they did a decent standalone (full range) unit, I would likely scoop it up almost immediately.
post #54 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

I had moved up through the ranks of the Denon Products and needing XLR for my subs (and the benefit found using them for all speakers too) I moved to the 8801 for that reason. I really like the 8801 a lot, I am just intrigued by the ARC processing and if they did a decent standalone (full range) unit, I would likely scoop it up almost immediately.

I would definitely be interested as well. Hint, hint to Anthem. smile.gif
post #55 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post



From my experience only Anthem's ARC did this correctly. None of the other room EQs I have tried/owned did this (Pioneer's MCACC, Audyssey MultEQ and MultEQ XT32 and YPAO RSC). And I don't understand how this can be done properly based on the way the AVR/Audyssey/YPAO etc. works. For example Audyssey does the measurements and the AVR decides the speakers (i.e. front left and right) are large. Okay, so no crossover. Audyssey recommends setting them to small with an 80Hz crossover. But the measurements haven't looked at the in-room response and the bass management slope that is most appropriate to that speaker for a smooth transition at the crossover frequency as Dr. Rich has described in the article and above. Anthem's ARC let's the user choose the most appropriate slope for rolloff as part of the targets setting. With Audyssey when people start using software to do some of their own measurements (e.g. REW, FuzzMeasure etc.) they end up modifying the distance/phase for the subwoofer so as to get a better blend between the subwoofers and the main speakers at the crossover. [portion deleted as it was incorrect]

I would be very interested in reading about your experiments and seeing your plots. smile.gif

Cheers

I wonder if the upcoming Emotiva XMC-1 with Dirac will overcome this issue on its own without distance "tweaking" after the fact. Does anyone know if the Datasat with Dirac does a good job on this ?
post #56 of 56
JapanDave would be a good one to ask as that is what he uses.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Should we be recommending Audyssey so much?