"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 409

Originally Posted by LarryChanin

Hi Andrew,

If I'm not mistaken you actually posted three sets of graphs.

Yes, your first set of curves had no subwoofers.

Your second set of curves only had an Audyssey LinearX + sub included. There wasn't a similar Audyssey Denon + sub.

Your third posting of graphs included a LinearX and a Denon curve, but their was no mention of any subwoofers or crossover values.

Are you referring to graphs you may have posted in another thread?

If I missed the Denon +sub graph can you please provide a link?

Thanks.

Larry

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

OTE=audyssey;15947047]So far, I prefer the "Audyssey-flat" curve, which seems the most realistic.

Originally Posted by Mike25690

. . . That's why I visit the Audyssey thread often, and it's been even more interesting than usual lately.

Originally Posted by Trek7300

That's because of all of the "feeling the love" that was going on a few pages ago . . .

Originally Posted by kjgarrison

Way back in this thread someplace I posted just this idea; of moving the mic to perpendicular for specific speakers. In my case it was in-ceiling surrounds, which the mic "points at" at about a 30 degree angle when it is pointing at the ceiling. The response was that it would require an improbable amount of agility to quickly make the mic changes between chirps.

So.

I'm very interested to hear more about where you hid between adjustments and how you were able to get in, make the tilt, and get out in the short time available.

Originally Posted by Bronco70

And when will we all get away from the idea that response above 20kHz means anything?

Originally Posted by audyssey

Now you've done it Joe...Prepare for 10 pages of "192 kHz is so amazing I can hear the air and presence in sub-atomic particle vibrations"

Originally Posted by audyssey

Now you've done it Joe...Prepare for 10 pages of "192 kHz is so amazing I can hear the air and presence in sub-atomic particle vibrations"

Originally Posted by John H

How much attention does Audyssey MultEQ XT give to the subwoofer channel?

Originally Posted by audyssey

Now you've done it Joe...Prepare for 10 pages of "192 kHz is so amazing I can hear the air and presence in sub-atomic particle vibrations"

Originally Posted by Kuro

The audyssey+subXX.jpg were graphs measured using the Denon mic with crossover at XX freq.

Originally Posted by shelly

Chris,

My front left and right speakers are 6'+ tall. My ears fall in the middle of the bottom of 3 15" high ribbon tweeters. My center is normal height (4') for a standing speaker, though, with the top 30" being ribbon tweeters. So thee's still about 36" of ribbon tweeter above my seated ears (which is great for listening while walking around.)

Because of the height of my left and right speakers, should I be placing the mic vertically at the top horizontal plane or just at my ear level?

The Maggie discussion has me a bit confused about this.

Thanks.

Shelly

Originally Posted by audyssey

Hi Shelly,

For speakers with a standard tweeter we recommend placing the tweeters at ear height and the mic at ear height. In your case (and Jim's) the tweeter is much larger and operates on a different principle. Ribbon tweeters are much more sensitive to vertical placement of the mic (and the ears for that matter).

My suggestion would be to start with the mic on the center line of the tweeter even though that would put it above your head. What Jim tried was tilting the mic, but still keeping it at ear height so that if you draw an imaginary line from the center of the ribbon it grazes over the top surfaces of the mic. I can't predict which one will give better results, so it may be worth trying both.

Originally Posted by kjgarrison

Jim, can you elaborate on your method please?

Originally Posted by David Aiken

Larry,

All of your points are valid BUT

Jeff posted those results because he obviously believes they show an objective superiority of his setup compared to the Audyssey results. As I said, I don't believe they do.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he either followed Audyssey's instructions reasonably well for the Audyssey setup or simply measured a customer's Audyssey results in which case that bet is off, and that he did the measurements of the Audyssey setup and his setup in the same manner; in other words I don't believe he tried to "fudge" the results in his favour and I'll assume the 2 plots are directly comparable in terms of measurement methods and accuracy. On the basis of the plots he's supplied, I don't see a distinct advantage to his setup or to Audyssey but I can see enough difference to appreciate that some people would prefer one over the other.

He's obviously gathering comments from his customers and, once again, I'm happy to assume he's reporting them correctly. For the reasons I stated, I think his sampling of Audyssey customers is skewed in favour of those who didn't like their Audyssey result and who are therefore prone to want to try a different approach and to like a different result. I have no doubt he genuinely believes his results are better than Audyssey's but that is likely to be in part because his customers tend to prefer his result and in part because of his own preferences. In any event, his advertising claim that his results are superior needs to be recognised as an advertising claim and none of us believe every advertising claim we read, though we all believe some of them. I think it's a claim he's entitled to make since the superiority of one over the other is, in part, always going to be determined by personal preference. Audyssey attempts to do one specific thing, match system response to mastering standards. I suspect Jeff also attempts to achieve one specific thing with his setup but I doubt it's the same thing as Audyssey is attempting. Which is "superior" is always going to be determined in part by preferences.

Regardless of how he measures things or does the Audyssey setup, that sample bias isn't going to go away and I think he'll still end up reporting the same comments from his customers. I think any measurements or test data he provides for Audyssey and his results will always fail to show a clear advantage to either but will continue to give indications of why some people will prefer one and not the other.

So, I'm prepared to accept his data on face value and trust his reports of responses to his setups. I just don't think his results, either measured or his customers assessments, prove that his results are objectively superior. I'm happy to see an alternative method available for those who don't like Audyssey but, based on his data, I also see no reason for me to race out and hire him, or anyone else, to come in and change anything in my system when I really like the results Audyssey gives me.

Originally Posted by shelly

Thanks for the prompt response.

Will using this extended height negatively impact measurements for the other speakers?

Although a raised mic position as you suggest would actually put the mic almost level with the side surround speakers and just under the rear wall speakers.

Shelly

Originally Posted by Mike25690

Well, I am an exception, I guess; as I said in my earlier post, I'm quite pleased with my Audyssey results (Denon 3808) for movies and TV--I want to hear things as they were intended to be heard. And I have followed the setup guide for my calibrations. However, with music, I simply want to use my own curve, which I modify now and then.

As for wanting a pro calibration, I'm mainly concerned with getting my display calibrated, and since UMR will probably not be returning to my remote area anytime soon, I will have him check out my audio as well. I'm always interested in improving my setup, whether it be with software, hardware or human expertise. That's why I visit the Audyssey thread often, and it's been even more interesting than usual lately.

Originally Posted by audyssey

Some of the more nimble members of the group have managed to move the mic to different heights in between measurements. There is just enough time between speakers to move the mic down for the center speaker, for example, if its tweeter center is lower.

Originally Posted by pepar

I never changed the height of the mic, just rotated it around the three axes. I don't think I could have made adjustments beyond that in the allotted time. But then the mic could "see" all of the speakers and did not need a height change.

Originally Posted by pepar

Next is timing. With my OP885, there was 15 seconds between chirp sets. You need to wait 5 seconds after the last chirp to allow for decay. And you need to be "back out" and quiet before the next set. Allow 5 seconds for that. That leaves 5 seconds to step in and make the adjustment.

Originally Posted by audyssey

Some of the more nimble members of the group have managed to move the mic to different heights in between measurements. There is just enough time between speakers to move the mic down for the center speaker, for example, if its tweeter center is lower.

Originally Posted by LarryChanin

Hi Andrew,

I can't find that graph in any of your three postings.

How about posting a link to it?

Thanks.

Larry

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

. What is relevant, as you have demonstrated, is that its radiation pattern, as a line source, is significantly different from that of small symmetrical tweeters. That is why a different measurement approach (or, if Audyssey was to engineer it) a different calculation approach is necessary.

.

Originally Posted by kjgarrison

Way back in this thread someplace I posted just this idea; of moving the mic to perpendicular for specific speakers. In my case it was in-ceiling surrounds, which the mic "points at" at about a 30 degree angle when it is pointing at the ceiling. The response was that it would require an improbable amount of agility to quickly make the mic changes between chirps.

So.

I'm very interested to hear more about where you hid between adjustments and how you were able to get in, make the tilt, and get out in the short time available.

Originally Posted by pepar

Jim, how is the NAD 175 characterized with respect to "openness" and what is powering your system?

Originally Posted by SoundofMind

Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack jump fast for the Audyssey fix......Not to reopen the whole "how much sound does the human body absorb/reflect" issue, but for those contemplating such precisely tailored mic angles in rapid sequence, wouldn't it be fine to just sit quietly on the floor a few feet from the mic stand/tripod during the chirps, as long as you are not directly between mic and speaker?