or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Audyssey Sound Equalizer User Report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audyssey Sound Equalizer User Report

post #1 of 53
Thread Starter 
I just got my Sound Equalizer installed yesterday by an installer that Audyssey hooked me up with. I had very little time to play, but so far I think it was worth every penny already! Also I would be remiss if I didn't mention that Audyssey had very friendly & helpful customer service.

Installation:
I delayed my installer many times. One of the EQ's limitations is that the customer doesn't get the software so if the environment changes you have get the installer back. So every time I thought of a new tweak I delayed. The tweaks of note are I actually have the bookshelf surrounds in a bookshelf so I put acoustic damping foam all around the shelf it was on. And I put acoustic decoupling foam for underneath them. I also got a heavy velvet pleated curtains to close off the bay window free hanging. And I finally had enough guts to move my sub to behind the listener based on many professional recommendations, not exactly a wife accepted location since that location is right in front of the door. I calibrated for one listener so there should be no compromises. My wife is just not into movies and really never watches (maybe because she's Australian) and she told me not to bother. I felt selfish and I told her that the EQ can do 32 seats! But she said what's the point? If the software had memory settings I could have just set up my wife as a different setting. Maybe when Nora Roberts actually runs out of books she'll finally enjoy movies

The install went smooth and very professional. The installer showed me graphs (quickly, so I tried to memorize) of before and after. I'll be getting a copy of the graphs in the mail from Audyssey soon.

Calibration:
I was expecting the bumpiest graphs and very far from a straight line. I have many acoustic issues. According to some room calculators I have horrible dimensions. One of the soft wares said I had to build a new room and would not continue to calculate. And I have a big Bench Bay window and my surrounds are in bookshelves. And I have a lot of wooden cabinetry.

My Right Main was surprisingly straight pre-calibration. Certainly my straightest. My entire right wall is covered in books so I guess books really do help. My Left Main was the worse by far (as I guessed). The combination of the right wall and fire place reflections and the floor to ceiling huge cabinet behind it. Perhaps room treatments would be helpful on the wall there. If I had the software I could play with treatments and see where If I could get it straighter pre-calibration. Maybe even playing with the speaker placement. Especially if all my audio will go through the EQ, I would want to know when the EQ thinks it is a straighter line so it would have to manipulate less. My center was second to the worse. I would have thought the surrounds. They are in bookshelves. So I guess the rule that I read on more than one occasion that bookshelves are the worse place is false. You can get worse: by placing bad things next to it. I'm guessing the center was so bad because of the motorized screen that comes down pretty close on top and behind with that mettle pole weight thingy. And there is the bench bay window centered directly behind it. I was also surprised how straight my pre-calibration surrounds were considering its placements. Maybe the damping foam helped?

I had a huge dip towards the beginning of the spectrum coincidently on all my 5.1 speakers. The software doesn't supply numbers with the graphs, but using the graphs that I see in magazines as reference, it could be around 60Hz. I guess I'll know the exact number when I get the graph. The funny thing is the software practically ignored it. After the calibration the big dip was still there. But hey, one dip is not bad at all. It's just funny that it is so BIG while the rest of the spectrum is so straight, even the lower freq.

I should mention that the post calibration line was very suspiciously straight. Put it this way: When magazines give positive reviews on speakers and display graphs to the reader to show how straight they are, those graphs now look far from a straight line in comparison. Note that I am not complaining and if the EQ now achieved this straight line, I am more than happy. It's just that I have never seen such a straight line in print in my entire life so I'm a bit skeptical. I'll get a Radio Shack Corrected Test CD to spot check them.

Use:
I should mention at this point I am no Audiophile. Not by far. I can't tell you about the sound stage and openness at certain freq and all that good stuff I read in the professional reviews. (My wife even mentioned that she wished I came with a sound EQ when I sang the traditional Hanukah lighting ceremony song last night ). But here is what I can tell as a layman without golden ears:

Previously, My system could never do Space Ships taking off. I always noted that. My $4K sub always sounded like a mallet with towels were banging in the track. I always thought perhaps it was my cabinets resonating because it improved when I put felt around all the doors. Same thing for wind. The swooshing wind you hear at the end of some trailers. So I Rented: Serenity (I distinctly remember my system could not do the space ship in that movie without me intuitively wanting to lower the volume. Anyway, It really sounded like the theaters do (My only reference for what a space ship should sound like) and no mallet thumping. It's actually a pretty neat trick for the recoding engineer to do. How can they get all those low freq to acoustically elevate?

Surrounds:
I rarely even hear them. I always figured that since sound engineers use surrounds only 5-10% of the time during movies and I have a bad habit of slouching and causing the back of the chair to cover my ear and that could account for rarely ever hearing them. And the bookshelf issue. The surrounds were another obvious improvement. I noticed during Serenity's opening space ship chase scene. The space ships swooshing around to right-left behind the listener. For the first time, I was hearing surrounds.

One advice that I thought of is to somehow mark the speakers' exact positions. If it changes the entire EQ is off.

Wish list:
1) Memory settings
2) Balanced Inputs
3) Avoid the A/D/A conversion somehow - maybe through a digital proprietary connection to processors?
4) Software should be available to users.
5) Remote (The remote could be useful because it runs very hot and a universal remote can be set to shut it off when you shut off the system and if they decide to add memery settings)

I originally got the EQ because room treatments are expensive and I was skeptical if non-audiophiles can detect a difference if we are not hearing a straight line. I figured the EQ would give me a good feel if I can personally detect. It's way cheaper investment than room treatments. The answer is yes, I can hear the difference. But now I am skeptical if I will hear the difference if I got room treatments post EQ.
post #2 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptCapitalism View Post

I had a huge dip towards the beginning of the spectrum coincidently on all my 5.1 speakers. The software doesn't supply numbers with the graphs, but using the graphs that I see in magazines as reference, it could be around 60Hz. I guess I'll know the exact number when I get the graph.

Nope. They will send you the same uncalibrated graphs that you already saw.

Quote:


The funny thing is the software practically ignored it. After the calibration the big dip was still there. But hey, one dip is not bad at all. It's just funny that it is so BIG while the rest of the spectrum is so straight, even the lower freq.

That's surprising.

Quote:


I should mention that the post calibration line was very suspiciously straight. Put it this way: When magazines give positive reviews on speakers and display graphs to the reader to show how straight they are, those graphs now look far from a straight line in comparison. Note that I am not complaining and if the EQ now achieved this straight line, I am more than happy. It's just that I have never seen such a straight line in print in my entire life so I'm a bit skeptical. I'll get a Radio Shack Corrected Test CD to spot check them.

Yeah. In addition to lacking scales for the graphs, they also do not say anything about the resolution of the graphs. I found that they were very smoothed compared with TEF, EFT or RoomEQWizard measurements. Now one could make the argument that, above the bass, such smoothing is a better representation of the subjective performance.

Quote:


I can't really A/B because I would have to set the trims and distances for non-EQ listening because my installer said they have to be 0's.

Oh no! They have to be set to the Audyssey recommendations, not 0's. The manual says, and I quote:
Quote:


Distance is in feet, and must be used to set the distance (delay) in the preamp/processor.
Trim is displayed in dB. This number is not a dB SPL number; it is a relative Trim. The Trim information must be used to configure the level trims in the preamp/processor.

Quote:


That's a 3 minute chore. Way too long for a non audiophile. But like I said the space ship thing is obvious change that I can tell even with the three minute interval.

Nope. Transfer the Audyssey settings and use them for Audyssey and bypass.

Quote:


Wish list:
1) Memory settings
2) Balanced Inputs
3) Avoid the A/D/A conversion somehow - maybe through a digital proprietary connection to processors?
4) Software should be available to users.
5) Remote (The remote could be useful because it runs very hot and a universal remote can be set to shut it off when you shut off the system)

I agree with 1, 2, 4 and 5. I would add balanced outputs, too. I would not include 3 because that would require constant updating for the Audyssey to understand the always changing variety of codings.
post #3 of 53
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

Oh no! They have to be set to the Audyssey recommendations, not 0's. The manual says, and I quote...

Nope. Transfer the Audyssey settings and use them for Audyssey and bypass.

As I said in our other thread, I emailed Audyssey and am still waiting for a response. I started this new thread because 1) There was little user feedback to what I feel is a very confusing product. 2) In appreciation to Audyssey for all their help. Normally I'm way too lazy.
It would be very funny if you are correct and my installer incorrect and he would have to re-install.
I am not a videophile, but my ISF guy had to come back a second time as well. I thought the settings were not right so I posted my concerns here. Some Marantz rep PM me his cell, I called him and read my settings. This Marantz Rep personally had the ISF guy call me to reschedule a new appointment. He did much better the second time around. This forum Rocks!

I'm beginning to think this forum is a pre-req to get my media delivered correctly.
post #4 of 53
Sorry. I failed to note that you are the same guy and responded as if there was yet another person whose installer did something which appears, to me, to be less than competent.
post #5 of 53
As far as delay and trims are concerned, it will have to be the same on your prepro for both non EQ and EQ setting. Audyssey does not implement distance and crossover settings on their unit. They leave it to your pre/pro to set that. So go ahead and hear/test the difference with and without by pressing the red button on the unit.

The only time the prepro setting does not matter is during the measurement stage. As the Audyssey unit is generating and sending the test signal to the subs and speakers directly. Of course your subs crossover and phase will still affect the measurements if they are enabled.

Oliver
post #6 of 53
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oliverlim View Post

So go ahead and hear/test the difference with and without by pressing the red button on the unit.

I was bypassing by using my Proc/Amp's balanced inputs/outputs. They are enabled at the same time as the rca's and could run 2 home theaters at the same time. If I am to compare I need to use the environment that I am used to for the last three years. Besides the EQ's bypass mode runs at a lower volume so it is not a fair comparison. I've finally determined by using my Power Conditioner's voltage output display and sound meter that the EQ lowered my volume 8db to the amps inputs. I'll have to calculate that for the EQ's bypass mode. Besides I paid $1K+ for my NBS balanced cables pairs, I want to still use them sometimes. So it would be great if I could set the trims and distances in the Pre/Pro.
post #7 of 53
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oliverlim View Post

Of course your subs crossover and phase will still affect the measurements if they are enabled.

My subs crossovers do not shut off. Audyssey specifically said their software adjusts for this. They even had me Email them my Subs specs. So I hope you are wrong.
post #8 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptCapitalism View Post

I was bypassing by using my Proc/Amp's balanced inputs/outputs. They are enabled at the same time as the rca's and could run 2 home theaters at the same time. If I am to compare I need to use the environment that I am used to for the last three years. Besides the EQ's bypass mode runs at a lower volume so it is not a fair comparison. I've finally determined by using my Power Conditioner's voltage output display and sound meter that the EQ lowered my volume 8db to the amps inputs. I'll have to calculate that for the EQ's bypass mode. Besides I paid $1K+ for my NBS balanced cables pairs, I want to still use them sometimes. So it would be great if I could set the trims and distances in the Pre/Pro.

Yupe. For your case it would be different. If it was pure RCA then it would be a fair comparision using the bypass as the EQ and non EQ are at the same 9db lower levels. I did a SPL measurement with Pink Noise and they measured the same. But did not bother to see if the bypass introduce anything just by being in the path.

Oliver
post #9 of 53
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oliverlim View Post

The only time the prepro setting does not matter is during the measurement stage.

My installer specifically said that is incorrect. My installer left the trims and distances to 0 both before and after calibration. I can't test because I can't remember all 12 settings. I imagine I should be experiancing Lip-Synch issues If it should be implemnted and it's not. I'll test a few movies now.

Also I rember that the distances had decimal points, does that mean that the EQ is out of wack if my Proc doesn't acccept decimal points?
post #10 of 53
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

I would not include 3 because that would require constant updating for the Audyssey to understand the always changing variety of codings.

Audysseys has relationships with receiver companies. I imagine the receivers implement the software while still in the digital realm. Couldn't the receivers make a slight modification and send the digital signal to another chassis instead of some chips and the EQ can just loop the finished signal back. I think it would be a great gimmick for Audyssey if there are receivers that have Audyssey Equipped Outputs. Of coarse the software can be implemented in the receivers, but the nitpickers will always want the dedicated device.
post #11 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptCapitalism View Post

My installer specifically said that is incorrect. My installer left the trims and distances to 0 both before and after calibration. I can't test because I can't remember all 12 settings. I imagine I should be experiancing Lip-Synch issues If it should be implemnted and it's not. I'll test a few movies now.

Also I rember that the distances had decimal points, does that mean that the EQ is out of wack if my Proc doesn't acccept decimal points?

He is wrong Coz the Audyssey is connected after the pre/pro right? Also it generates the tones from the unit itself. So the pre cannot influenze any of its measurements. Just thing how can the pre settings or volume control affect what is generated from the audyssey unit? Thats why no matter what you set in the unit, it recommends the same setting to be inputted into your prepro. But thats not important anyway.

Audyssey does measure to the CM. If your prepro does not have that level of accuracy, then get it as close as possible to the recommendations would be good enough. Of course since you are measuring to cover a area (acoustic bubble in Audyssey speak) then then few tens of CM should not matter that much. There is nothing much you can do anyway short of shifting the speakers physically so that the difference is smaller. I still do not understand how your installer can still set the crossover, distance in your prepro as zero after calibration. Unless all your speakers are already in the exact same distance to your LP and at the same SPL? When you get your graph see what the trims and distance are and see if they match your prepro settings.

Main thing is how does it sound now? Also have you had a chance to compare the EQ preset with your XLR after compensating for the level differences?

Oliver
post #12 of 53
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oliverlim View Post

He is wrong

I believe you. Someone from the forum quoted me from the manual
Quote:
Originally Posted by oliverlim View Post

...it recommends the same setting to be inputted into your prepro. But thats not important anyway.

Isn't part of the EQ's job to blend in all the speakers? Doesn't the software ask if it is a multi room set-up? If blending is part of the job than distances/delays and trims I would think is crucial to the listening environment/bubble. That seems like a very big out of whack issue if my trims are big numbers. What if my trim is +9db for my left main?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oliverlim View Post

There is nothing much you can do anyway short of shifting the speakers physically so that the difference is smaller.

That won't help either. Shifting the speakers throw the EQ out of whack. But I am more concerned with the trims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oliverlim View Post

...crossover...as zero

Audyssey assured me that the software could have parameters that can't change. All my Crossovers are overwritten to 60Hz for all channels as per Audysseys advise because of some of my systems limitations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oliverlim View Post

When you get your graph see what the trims and distance are and see if they match your prepro settings.

My Pre/Pro's manual settings still remain 0.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oliverlim View Post

Main thing is how does it sound now? Also have you had a chance to compare the EQ preset with your XLR after compensating for the level differences?

Stereo sounds horrible in my room without EQ even with my NBS XLR cables and the lack of an extra A/D/A conversion. I was forced to use Pro Logic II. And I was strictly stereo until I created my listening room. I'll compare Pro Logic II's next.
post #13 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptCapitalism View Post

Isn't part of the EQ's job to blend in all the speakers? Doesn't the software ask if it is a multi room set-up? If blending is part of the job than distances/delays and trims I would think is crucial to the listening environment/bubble. That seems like a very big out of whack issue if my trims are big numbers. What if my trim is +9db for my left main?

That won't help either. Shifting the speakers throw the EQ out of whack. But I am more concerned with the trims.

What Audyssey does it make changes in the Freq and time domain. It does not delay the signal to account for speaker distance difference. That should be taken care of by your prepro which should have the capability to do that. Yes, it would be perfect if it can do that but then it would have cost more to implement and likely to be not useful for most.

The trims are relative. So if you are unable to increase it to say +9 which is is suggesting, as your pre/pro does not allow. Then take the smallest number or the number in the middle and use that as Zero. E.g.

LF +8
RF +5
Cent +6
LS 0
RS +2
Sub 0


And your prepro only allows +- 5 values what you do is this. Take Right Front as zero setting for your prepro. LF should be set to +3, Center as +1, Sub as -5. As these are relative, there is no issue and is still correct. If you take a SPL and measure it with Avia or DVE or a test tone, your SPL meter will tell you that your LF is 3DB softer then your RF channel.

Hopefully this helps.

Oliver
post #14 of 53
Thread Starter 
So I just do a tonal balance? I have the Avia DVD.

Since I am not at home, in the meantime I could maybe just Email my installer and ask for my trims and distaces, maybe he can still give it to me?

Thanks
post #15 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptCapitalism View Post

Audysseys has relationships with receiver companies. I imagine the receivers implement the software while still in the digital realm. Couldn't the receivers make a slight modification and send the digital signal to another chassis instead of some chips and the EQ can just loop the finished signal back. I think it would be a great gimmick for Audyssey if there are receivers that have Audyssey Equipped Outputs. Of coarse the software can be implemented in the receivers, but the nitpickers will always want the dedicated device.

Not bloody likely. Besides, with new HD formats, there are serious content-protection issues that further complicate it. Frankly, I like getting Audyssey EQ with my SACDs.

Kal
post #16 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptCapitalism View Post

So I just do a tonal balance? I have the Avia DVD.

Since I am not at home, in the meantime I could maybe just Email my installer and ask for my trims and distaces, maybe he can still give it to me?

Thanks

I am sure he has stored the files of your measurements. So he can just upload it to the Audyssey web site and look at it off there quick.

Using Avia to measure all your channels Sound level will do for now while you wait for the trims from your installer that is. It should be very very close.

Oliver
post #17 of 53
Thread Starter 
More to report:
I realized now that I never really had a vertical sound stage. I totally followed the sound of the space ship taking off. I must have rewound that 10 times. Theaters don't distinctly elevate like that. And this is in a room with Horrible dimensions (19'x11'2"x8'), Bench Bay Window, Fire Place, French Glass Pocket doors, 2 Garden Bay windows, 2 speakers in bookshelves and a lot of wooden cabinets. As my wife would say: Brilliant!

I wonder what the professional reviewers will say of the EQ. Does the EQ have a sonic signature especially with 2 extra conversions? What kind of sonic price are we paying for having the EQ in the audio chain? Does it negatively effect the sound stage?

I'm guessing that in most non-dedicated HT's, not having the EQ effects the sound stage more negatively then have the EQ with IT affecting the sound stage. To put it another way: Getting the flat line not so perfectly might be better then not having the flat line at all. Especially if you're not an audiophile.

Although, Krell won't be happy knowing I'm taking their DAC's and converting it a couple more times. I've read countless positive reviews on Krell DACs
post #18 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptCapitalism View Post

snip...

I had a huge dip towards the beginning of the spectrum coincidently on all my 5.1 speakers. The software doesn't supply numbers with the graphs, but using the graphs that I see in magazines as reference, it could be around 60Hz. I guess I'll know the exact number when I get the graph. The funny thing is the software practically ignored it. After the calibration the big dip was still there. But hey, one dip is not bad at all. It's just funny that it is so BIG while the rest of the spectrum is so straight, even the lower freq.

...snip

This is not unusual. EQ'ing a sharp dip can cause more problems than it solves, especially at bass freqs. What can occur is, if you EQ the 60hz, other bass modes can be excited and now you have to EQ them. In doing so, you probably will create more nulls and those now have to be EQ'ed and you wind up chasing your tail and eventually you run out of amp power. JBL, as was conveyed to me by a engr. VP, pretty much only corrects the peaks and wide (low Q) depressions. No nulls.
post #19 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

Not bloody likely. Besides, with new HD formats, there are serious content-protection issues that further complicate it. Frankly, I like getting Audyssey EQ with my SACDs.

Kal

Is there a date (issue) that you review the stand alone unit in Stereophile-or did I miss it somehow?
post #20 of 53
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulbf1 View Post

No nulls.

So this is the famous null. I've also read articles that said EQ's can't solve this issue. I have also read that EQ's doesn't solve other issues. For example, freq that resonate longer then they should. I think they are called decaying modals. I am still doing analysis on this very complex subject and have much to learn.

But keeping the big picture in mind, I wonder if I can hear the difference. Will I notice that a few low freq got skipped in the track? To what extant will I hear some other resonating freq while I am only suppose to be listening to other freq, if at all? I was wondering if how the software compensated for these issues. I see they did not compensate for nulls if you are correct. I wonder if the software compensates for the other issues that I have read can't be compensated for. Audyssey's website says their EQ does not preclude passive room treatments so I guess they agree. I plan on getting room treatments one day, just so I know I am hearing accurate information. It's just that knowing what the perceivable differences are post EQ will certainly influence the priorities of my next upgrade, perhaps it makes more sense to try Dolby HD with the EQ then room treatments now? In my situation it was clear that room treatment and/or EQ was the highest priority. I just could not figure out which I should try first. The $2,500 was deal maker for me. There is the plug and play and wife acceptance factor attraction as well.

It occurred to me after I installed the EQ if these issues that EQ doesn't solve are perceivable in my setup. If yes, how perceivable is it to an average person who wasn't gifted to have a golden ear. Now that I have been more intimate with the EQ, I understand soundstage more. I hear things actually localized to a particular part of the listening bubble. So there are very perceivable positive differences with the EQ even to me. I just wonder Post EQ w/o treatments Vs. Post EQ with treatments.
post #21 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randybes View Post

Is there a date (issue) that you review the stand alone unit in Stereophile-or did I miss it somehow?

Planned for the March issue in my regular column.
post #22 of 53
You might want to check out this book for a good explanation of room acoustics in home theater. It's a bit technical but it's one of the best on the subject that I've seen.

http://gedlee.com/Home_theatre.htm

You are correct, EQ'ing can only correct a subset of acoustic problems. And if you change listening positions, all bets are off
post #23 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

Planned for the March issue in my regular column.

Look forward to it.
post #24 of 53
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

In addition to lacking scales for the graphs, they also do not say anything about the resolution of the graphs. I found that they were very smoothed compared with TEF, EFT or RoomEQWizard measurements. Now one could make the argument that, above the bass, such smoothing is a better representation of the subjective performance.

I happen to want objective numbers. Personally, I can't detect any differences for things that are not scientifically measurable. Certainly as a non-audiophile.

Don't get me wrong, I believe there are people that do. There are people out there that can detect openness at certain freq, like professional reviewers. I can't. The goal of Media Delivery Systems like Home Theaters are to deliver the media accurately. Accurate is defined as the recording engineer/artist intended. That is a tangible goal. If people with golden ears found ways to improve accuracy, or hear inaccuracies, all the power to them. Perhaps they are more gifted. Creating a Media Room that all the gifted people in the world like is not a tangible goal, however. At the very least that goal should perhaps be phased in, and a person should start off by being scientifically correct and move on from there.
post #25 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptCapitalism View Post

I happen to want objective numbers. Personally, I can't detect any differences for things that are not scientifically measurable. Certainly as a non-audiophile.

Don't get me wrong, I believe there are people that do. There are people out there that can detect openness at certain freq, like professional reviewers. I can't.

I doubt that. What you seem to be stating is a philosophical position of objectivity but, in truth, it denies the real value of building a sound system. If you cannot hear and appreciate such differences, save your money. Now, asking for verification of what you hear and/or paying someone to build it right is a different issue.

Quote:


The goal of Media Delivery Systems like Home Theaters are to deliver the media accurately. Accurate is defined as the recording engineer/artist intended. That is a tangible goal. If people with golden ears found ways to improve accuracy, or hear inaccuracies, all the power to them. Perhaps they are more gifted. Creating a Media Room that all the gifted people in the world like is not a tangible goal, however. At the very least that goal should perhaps be phased in, and a person should start off by being scientifically correct and move on from there.

OK. My point in the quoted post is that the feedback offered is tailored by Audyssey. It does not show you all the information but, and here I am speculating, shows you what is psychoacoustically relevant. Graphs with much higher resolution convey more information but they require more skilled interpretation in order to distinguish aberrations that are audibly significant from those that are not.
post #26 of 53
Quote:


I doubt that. What you seem to be stating is a philosophical position of objectivity but, in truth, it denies the real value of building a sound system. If you cannot hear and appreciate such differences, save your money. Now, asking for verification of what you hear and/or paying someone to build it right is a different issue.

Unless you've been to a live performance for a particular artist or symphony, you don't really know what they are supposed to sound like. Many don't know what "accurate" sound is because they've never heard it from their system. I think most would like to have output from their speakers that is as close as possible, sonically, to the recorded performance. It has nothing necessarily to do with what sounds better -- but it's what sound is accurate / representative of the recorded performance.

When you play a classical SACD, do you want your system to deliver every nuance of the recorded symphony with all of its flaws, such that you can discern mediocre performances from great ones? Or do you want everything output from your speakers to "sound good to your ears," even if you aren't getting the performance as it was recorded?

Objective data helps provide "proof" that one's system, as calibrated, can reproduce recordings accurately -- i.e. as the mixer intended.
post #27 of 53
"Personally, I can't detect any differences for things that are not scientifically measurable. Certainly as a non-audiophile."

Not to open a can of worms here, but didn't you say something about having spent $1K on cables?
post #28 of 53
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

If you cannot hear and appreciate such differences, save your money.

Gifted listeners like professional reviewers and audiophiles do help the consumers and for people like me they are a reference. If many gifted listeners say a product is lacking, I wouldn't buy it even if I went as far as testing it myself and couldn't hear the differences. On the flip side, if many gifted listeners give positive reviews I would buy it because I would think that I have such a state of the art system that even gifted listeners like it even though it can't be scientifically measured. Even Gifted listeners must respect the fact that there are more gifted people than them. And I read that the older you get the less even the gifted listeners can hear accurately. They have rings tones that only kids can hear, for example. So I guess gifted listeners must also listen to what their fellow gifted listeners have to say. Gifted listeners opinions should influence someone who sincerely wants accurate music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

If you cannot hear and appreciate such differences, save your money.

You reminded me of another point that I was thinking about posting as independent thread because it was the most noticeable tweak I have ever done in the history of my system and I have never seen it reported:
I had the case of the gimmees for a Video Processor, and there is the getting your video accurately thing. Wavy flags aside, I wanted to know if I can personally see the difference in real life material, especially since professional reviewers were saying I had a decent processor built in to the proj. So I convinced a dealer to lend me a $10K processor. I was A/Bing for weeks, I even took off a couple of day off work for this because I wanted it really bad. I was getting frustrated not noticing. One time when I was A/Bing it hit me to double check that I cleaned my glasses. And Wow! What a difference. The most noticeable tweak that I experienced was the glasses wipes that Wal-Mart sells for $2.99. It's like a shade has been lifted off the screen. It never ceases to amaze every time I A/B using the wipes.
post #29 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfdtv View Post

Unless you've been to a live performance for a particular artist or symphony, you don't really know what they are supposed to sound like. Many don't know what "accurate" sound is because they've never heard it from their system. I think most would like to have output from their speakers that is as close as possible, sonically, to the recorded performance. It has nothing necessarily to do with what sounds better -- but it's what sound is accurate / representative of the recorded performance.

When you play a classical SACD, do you want your system to deliver every nuance of the recorded symphony with all of its flaws, such that you can discern mediocre performances from great ones? Or do you want everything output from your speakers to "sound good to your ears," even if you aren't getting the performance as it was recorded?

Objective data helps provide "proof" that one's system, as calibrated, can reproduce recordings accurately -- i.e. as the mixer intended.

Sure but since no system is perfect, there are always trade-offs. If you do not know which trade-offs are more or less offensive to you, you cannot choose. OTOH, I do not argue with your issue but with the previous post which contended that the listener COULD not hear the differences.
post #30 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptCapitalism View Post

You reminded me of another point that I was thinking about posting as independent thread because it was the most noticeable tweak I have ever done in the history of my system and I have never seen it reported:
I had the case of the gimmees for a Video Processor, and there is the getting your video accurately thing. Wavy flags aside, I wanted to know if I can personally see the difference in real life material, especially since professional reviewers were saying I had a decent processor built in to the proj. So I convinced a dealer to lend me a $10K processor. I was A/Bing for weeks, I even took off a couple of day off work for this because I wanted it really bad. I was getting frustrated not noticing. One time when I was A/Bing it hit me to double check that I cleaned my glasses. And Wow! What a difference. The most noticeable tweak that I experienced was the glasses wipes that Wal-Mart sells for $2.99. It's like a shade has been lifted off the screen. It never ceases to amaze every time I A/B using the wipes.

When did you last clean your ears? I dewax mine regularly and wear protection on planes and in other noisy environments.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Audyssey Sound Equalizer User Report