"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 640

The diagram for the DSX speaker configuration says the angle of elevation for the height channels should be 45 degrees. If I'm understanding that correctly, you need a HUGE room for that. If for example the angle is relative to ear height (~36"), and you are sitting 10' away from the front wall, that would mean the the speakers would have to go 13' high! Even if the angle was relative to the floor, that would mean the speakers would have to go 10' high.

If we are going to add guidance about curve selection when listening in the near field, I suspect we should define it. Otherwise, the thread might be inundated with questions on what is "near field"?

I found this on Cardas' web site, so maybe we can point them to this or some other place?

In the near field position the speakers and the listener's head are the points of an equilateral triangle. Near field listening gives the perfect stereo field. It is frequently used in the recording studio to position the microphones and the voice in the mix. The near field listening position is determined by the "center to center" distance of the speakers and the distance to the listener's head. It does not refer to the room in any way.

The importance of symmetrical speaker placement in a small room cannot be over emphasized.

Once the speakers are set as close to perfect as possible, you must angle them slightly toward the listening position. This can be done by ear and usually a ¼ to ½ inch tweek will do. Box speakers generally require a bit more toe-in than planear speakers. You will be able to hear a center focused voice clarify when the sweet spot is hit.

Link: http://www.cardas.com/content.php?ar...g=Room+Setup+3

Mark

I guess the question is, how technical do you want to get in the Guide? You are right that once you open that can of worms, you will probably need to explain what it is or else we will be inundated with questions asking for clarification.

Might it be easier to not keep things more general, and just suggest that "if you have a very small or highly treated room, the Audyssey Flat curve may be better"? or something like that?

now where's the fun in that? the 1909/789 thread hasn't been very lively of late

Yes, just MultEQ. Dynamic EQ greatly magnifies the differences however, making it very easy to hear (extreme). Initially, I only thought it was with Dynamic EQ, because I was't paying attention to the smaller audible difference with just MultEQ on.

But you see that Chris measured bitstream (DD?) as being wrong even with MultEQ Off, which is different than what I found. The only difference I observed that didn't go away with MultEQ Off was with TrueHD. It was easily the most minor difference regardless of Audyssey stuff, but absent on the AVR-590 I tested.


Yes, definitely the same behavior with DTS! Since I didn't hear wild frequency variation with the lossless TrueHD bitstream, I concluded that it's lossy DD/DTS that get messed up, not only Dolby.




I hope they're just wrong about this stuff and newer firmware will also take care of the other differences I heard compared to the 590... They should sound identical, right?

1) You just measured (though I didn't of course) that bitstream was wrong without MultEQ, so that would go against "affects MultEQ."

2) I already reported on the refurb that with Dynamic EQ On, there was still a difference even without a subwoofer -- both "No" and "Yes" with it powered off. So that goes against "only in the subwoofer filter."


DTS too, like I've always said.

What about the slight bitstream/PCM level difference with TrueHD?

But my biggest remaining concern after this "only such and such" info. is that large volume level/setting discrepancy I've mentioned a couple times, compared to the 590. Can you comment on that, Chris? One of them has to be wrong (assume 1909!) if reference-level calibration is the goal.

if you have a SPL meter you can tell which one is "wrong". Just play the internal test tones (with the speaker channel levels at the audyssey calibrated values) and see which one is putting out 75dB, right?

Addendum: Sorry, that's not the post I meant to quote. I meant Dr P's post asking about the level differences between his 1909s and his 590. Must not be my day . . .

Seems unlikely Chris wouldhave any info on that.

I can't recall, did you experience measured differences in loudness with test tones at identical master volume settings between the 1909(s) and 590. I confess, i just assumed it was a difference in internal gain structure (which could be either hardware or software related) and not an error in either case. Different amps; different gain structures . . . . BUt of course let it be duly noted that this is nothing but a wild-assed guess.

Nearfield or "critical distance" is where the amount of direct sound exceeds the amount of reverberant sound. From my experience, being at the point of the triangle (or within it and on that axis) usually means you are nearfield. But I disagree that achieving it "does not refer to the room in any way" because room acoustics are a factor.

By Cardas' definition, I am at or darn close to nearfield. I am 11' from my L/Rs which have about 11' between them (have to measure it tonight). My room I would call "moderately" absorptive - wall to wall carpeting, heavy curtains at tv/main speaker end of room, lots of throw pillows, and two 80 lb Golden Retrievers.

If you lean forward in your seat do you hear an "improvement" in the sound quality?

Of course I have an SPL meter, which I've used for previous measurements, but I don't have a Denon AVR at the moment!

I guess you're right; hadn't really thought of that , only knew there was a definite difference between the 2 models.


Why not? He should be able to see if 0 is reference level, etc. Just wondering if he noticed anything weird with the master volume, though maybe it was only measurements without real listening. He said "PCM input is working perfectly," but does that also mean its output level is perfect, or just that its response curve is correct?


Yes, differences at the same master volume settings, and the same mic and measurement positions were always used. Main speaker trims on the 590 were 4-5dB lower than both 1909s, and the sub was about 10dB lower. Right, these could be caused by internal gain differences or something and that would be fine, but the master volume must be the same for reference calibration.

When measuring the 590's sub pre-out, I had to set the master volume about 9dB higher to get the same level into the computer, and I'd say the difference is almost that much when listening. For example, one thing I was playing on the 1909 at -44 volume was noticeably louder than -38 on the 590.

Or, at the same volume setting, the 1909s are that much louder. From the stuff I've listened to, I'm not sure I'd want to play a movie above -30 with the 1909s. And that seems too low to be at the "it's too loud" point.

The lower 1909 volume setting for the same output results in more boost from Dynamic EQ, so even though PCM input seems "OK" compared to the crazy DD/DTS bitstream, it actually sounds too "boomy" still after hearing the 590, which had a "just right" balance with DEQ.

Could someone please answer this question, preferably Chris , it got overlooked due to the Denon 1909 issue I guess:

Another question here, but this time about the crossover settings. My FR/FL/SR/SL speakers are rated at 60Hz as lowest and for my SBR/SBL my speakers are rated at 90hz, but the MultiEQ measures them at 40hz for the fronts and 50hz for the surrounds and 50hz for the surround backs?! If I would manually change them to their rated specs in the settings, would this mess with the MultiEQ room distortion corrections?
Besides the point if manually changing crossovers mess up teh MultiEQ, are my speakers better than the specs say because the Audyssey measurements are good enough to decide this?

I already changed my LFE LPF to 120hz, as Chris mentioned in a post that it should be at that setting anyways, as it only affects the LFE signal which goes to the sub anyways and does not affect the MultiEQ for sure, but about the above question I don't know tbh.

Thanks again all!

You should learn to search threads. This question is answered quite often. You can always raise your crossovers from the points at which your receiver (not Audyssey) sets them (although the receiver uses info reported by audyssey to select the crossover points). There are significant potential benefits from doing so, generally relating to the greater number of filters Audyssey has available to correct the sub range - - you're using more of the more-corrected sub response.

On the other hand, your receiver set the speakers' crossovers at or above the actual in-room -3dB point for the speakers, so there's nothing inherently wrong with the automatically selected level.

The usual advice, to which I subscribe, is to try raising the crossovers and see if you like it. You likely will . . .

Turn double bass off (if you have it on).

Leave your LFE LPF set to 120 Hz.

Set all your other speakers to 80 hz.

You are done.

Audyssey is measuring the actual, in-room frequency response of your speakers. Ignore the manufacturer's specs.

No, not really.

Lean back or stand just behind your main LP with your head at the same height as if you were seated, does the sound quality lessen a bit?

Thanks for the response, ths is helpful. About the search, I have done it and in this topic I could not find it, I do not like to ask questions where the answer is easy to find, but I could not find the answer through search.

Bluesky, thanks as well, I will try 80hz tomorrow when I come back from work and I will see if I like it.

Yep.

That suggests to me that you are within critical distance. Pour yourself an adult beverage and enjoy.

Well, I just measured the spacing between the speakers: only 7'6" vs 11" to my ears.

You know how things always look bigger to guys.

Can I still have that adult beverage?

Sure, that will help with critical distance.

i have a quick question. Audyssey calibrated my speakers (nht classic fours, sw10ii,3c and 2's) with the grills on .if i choose to now listen with the grills off should i re-calibrate.

Thank you for your time

Theoretically, I would think Audyssey would make both conditions sound identical, so what is the point? Unless you like to watch the drivers pulsate in and out.

I'll have one 20 year old Scotch, on the rocks please.

Well, but how would that change how the AVR is behaving?

Assuming Chris' setup didn't affect something (very unlikely), I was thinking more along the lines of the bitstream he was feeding it. I don't know anything about its characteristics, but I'm at least assuming it was Dolby Digital. If it was 640kbps, maybe that makes it screw up even without MultEQ, instead of the 384/448kbps tracks I used from DVDs and HDTV?

Hmm... back when I set my non-Slim PS3 to bitstream with the TrueHD soundtrack and got the core/companion DD audio at 640kbps, I didn't seem to hear as much of a radical FR change as I'd expect compared to the DVD audio. Of course, I couldn't have the PS3 decode just the DD portion of the TrueHD track to PCM to do a precise comparison of the exact same audio... But could it be that max bitrate DD doesn't get as screwed up with MultEQ, but does a little with MultEQ Off? But we don't know what Chris used...

Although tocaje who said he tried the French DD track from the Spiderman 3 BD and heard overblown bass. I'd think that track would be at 640kbps, but not necessarily I guess.

Speaking of Chris' "more sophisticated equipment," I assume the measurements he graphed were from a "sweep" test, instead of a simultaneous frequency range like the LFE pink noise I used (then measured with REW's RTA). That DIY Audio Test DVD has DD sweeps on it, but I figured those can't be used with REW's sweeps since it's not generating them itself. So I could only do an analog sweep... But now I think I realized how I can use a bitstream myself too!

Not that there was anything wrong with the AVR-590, but I could've tested if what I figured out Sunday would work. (Of course it was the day after the 590 was returned, and less than a week after I shipped the 1909 to Chris...) I was looking at some of Apple's QuickTime movie trailers again, some of which carry 5.1 (AAC), wondering how to send that 5.1 signal digitally to the AVR for TV viewing, etc. I don't have much experience with computer audio beyond analog stereo to desktop speakers. And even though I've had the Gigabyte EP45-UD3P motherboard with Realtek ALC889A audio, digital outputs, etc. for 9+ months, I never really looked into how 5.1 would work... Turns out I can simply use the Realtek's Dolby Digital Live encoder/output (verified with old JVC AVR), which was a surprise to me! I don't know how much sound hardware supports this (DTS has a version too), but it's cool to avoid using the board's multi-channel analog output and lose the AVR's digital processing, etc. Its audio control panel can even apply PLII processing to 2-channel stuff, so the proper audio comes out of the center speaker when sent out over the 5.1 carrier. However, it looks like QuickTime screws up trailers with plain stereo, still sending out 5.1 when configured for it, with sound only in the L/R channels... Oh well, on rare "trailers on the TV" occasions, I just wouldn't enable the Dolby Digital Live, and get 2-ch PCM.

Anyway, now that I figured that out, I'm sure that one could then also send REW's sweeps over both plain PCM and a DD 5.1 bitstream (L or R channel, which is fine)! Dolby Digital Live is probably using the max 640kbps, and I'd have liked to measure this way if I had "discovered" it a week sooner.

It was a joke, son.

The speaker grille cloth is designed to be acoustically transparent. Do you hear any difference between grills on/off? If you do not then I very much doubt that rerunning Audyssey with grills off would result in any audible difference.

I would. And I would listen to any speaker with the grills off, unless the grills are of the sock variety. Or an acoustically transparent cloth hanging free in front of the speaker. Grill frames are a source of diffraction, and for best reproduction diffraction should be limited as much as possible.

I like the use of the quotes around "improvement". I always have the feeling that while leaning forward make a clear difference it is only a difference and not an improvement. Now a new pair of speakers and room orientation games have started me off all over again. I think I might want Audyssey for my new-ish stereo set-up, but...