"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 2

I just wish that Audyssey had an option for a house curve on the lfe channel..
Just hit the button and it goes from flat to curved.
I dont know, but it sure does seem like that would be an easy thing to add(??)

Audyssey seems to be a bit irratic in setting the bass. Most folks think it's too low. In my case Audyssey sets the sub way too hot and that's with my sub placed near field in a large room (~3000 cf). Go figure. After setup I set the sub level the way I like it and then all is good.

Nick

Right. But why would you not want to bass manage the music? That is where bass management and Audyssey make the most noticeable improvement, with music. A good sub will do a much better job of reproducing the lows that almost any speaker. I suggest setting all your speakers to small all the time crossed over at 80Hz. An additional benefit to setting your speakers to small is that they don't "try" to reproduce the low frequency and with that load removed they do a better job on the frequencies above 80hz. Lastly, less is required of your receiver/amp since it's the low frequencies that tax it the most.

Nick

I don't see what you are getting at here. Change the "LFE curve"?

Nick

Agreed.

All Im saying is that Audyssey try's to eq the subs bass for a flat response... But down lower, alot of people prefer the bass with a curve from say 20 hz to 80 hz with 20 hz being slightly higher then 25, 25 being higher then 30 etc etc.. alot of folks like a 10~15 db gentle slop downward in dbs from 20~80 hz. That was the target I ( and alot of folks I know ) preferred to shoot for when eq-ing with the BFD eq.
So why couldnt Audyssey have aan option for a house curve down low...I mean there are alot of folks who complain about lack of lower bass. I think this would be exactly what the doctor ordered and seems like it would be relatively easy for the Audyssey people to do.

I really miss loudness controls, not that there were ever many proper ones that gave more bass boost at volume was lowered.

thanks nick and soundlover--i'm going to try those settings when i return from a trip next week. i'll probably re-run the audyssey yet again.

i'm sure i'll have some more questions when i do.

thanks again folks--very informative thread.

I don't know if the Audyssey folks every considered what you are suggesting, but what is not commonly understood is that Audyssey would like to have a fuller range of EQ options, but they are restricted by the limited the amount of memory Denon gave them to work with. They did the best they could with what they had available.

Nick

Interesting thread.
Anyone comment on how the Denon 2807 handles with Audyssey?

Agreed ..but I bet the next flavor of Audyssey/Denon will have something like what I mentioned ( ability for a bass curve ). The squeeky wheel gets the grease ..and lower regioned bass is the squeeky wheel right now.

Hey guys

Well this is great tread. I found an EXCELLENT article all about Audyssey and I consider it a MUST READ for anyone with or considering Audyssey. I learned a tremendous amount of stuff regarding Mic locations and the concept of an "Acoustic Bubble".

Page 5 is were the Article gets to the good stuff

http://www.audioholics.com/productre...eyMultEQp1.php

Here are some quick sections for those who don't have time to read the whole article right now.

Measurement: At Last! The most important placement of the microphone is the first. Start at the position that, in theory, should give the best sweet spot flat-frequency response. i.e. Place the microphone at the seat height which would put your ears and eyes directly in line with your video display and center channel speaker. In our situation the center of our sofa is exactly 9.1 feet from the video display and our center channel speaker. Note that neither my wife nor I usually sit in the center of the sofa. I sit on the left side of the sofa and my wife sits or even lays down on the right. The goal is to calibrate for optimal flat response performance within the acoustic bubble. The optimum acoustic bubble shape will be determined by the seating arrangement in the room.

All other microphone positions were around different areas on, standing behind, and leaning forward on the sofa. My leftmost regular seated position on the sofa was run twice. My wife's rightmost normal sofa viewing position was also mic'ed twice. This double-mic'ing for data acquisition gives a higher weighting to the two most often used listening/viewing positions. Moving the microphone just a couple of inches within these two weighted measurement locations should give MultEQ Pro good, more diverse data in these most important areas.

- Mic position 1: The center of sofa, mic 35 H, one data set/8 ch.

- Mic position 2: My left side of sofa seat, mic 35H, two data sets/8 ch.

- Mic position 3: My 5' tall wife's 30H right sofa seat; two data sets/8 ch.

Note: This position is below the level of the sofa back so the rear surround channel would theoretically have to boost its SPL level a bit on these two data acquisition runs.
- Mic positions 4, 5 & 6: One data set/8 ch. each was run at the left and right sofa arms. The height here is 24. I placed the pillows we often use on the sofa's arms when we both lay down across the couch and watch a movie. The first two positions form the outer width-wise perimeter of this oblong acoustic bubble. A third 24H data set/8 ch. was made to the right-center of the sofa to simulate when I'm sitting up watching the movie and my wife puts her head on a pillow on my leg.

- Mic positions 7 & 8: One data set/8 ch. each were made at 30 height and 7 feet from the L/C/Rs at left-center and right-center front of the sofa. These two positions form the front portion of this oblong acoustic bubble and simulate unbelieving audiophiles leaning forward as they always seem to do at the same time their jaws' are dropping.

- Mic positions 9 & 10: The last two data sets/8 ch. runs are at 66 height and 1 foot behind the left-center and right-center of the sofa. These two positions simulate the casual unbelievers who don't want to have to sit down to enjoy startlingly good sound.



Hey all anyways, please please read and comment back on your thoughts. I am anxiously waiting for Marantz to upgrade their top of the line receiver with Audyssey and hopefully HDMI 1.3. Then I can upgrade. If they don't I may just get this Audyssey Sound Equalizer....



Jerry

One solution would be an option in Audyssey setup that keeps it from managing the bass region (maybe below the cross-over). That would enable anyone with a BFD or sub with a built in eq to run Audyssey and keep it from mucking with the low bass curve. I was able to adjust mine with my BFD but I also had to implement some pretty severe cuts and boosts just to get it back to the "pre-Audyssey" flat state.

"Audyssey would like to have a fuller range of EQ options, but they are restricted by the limited the amount of memory Denon gave them to work with."

Does Audyssey's own standalone unit have that, and memories for more than one set EQ curves?

4 EQ options at setup but memory for only one set of filters.

Are the 4 EQ Options like the 4 EQ options on the Denon Receiver where the available options are:

1) Audyssey
2) Flat
3) Front
4) Manual

I can't wait until I read the review on this piece. It seems like quite a nice piece of hardware.

No. They offer varying degrees of HF roll-off with the bass flat in all of them.

I see. I guess that the EQ Options offer the Audyssey Curve and then three more options where the HF is roll off?

Also; is there an EQ Option where a high frequency roll off is not introduced? If I had a Denon Receiver, I would probably alternate between the Audyssey and Flat curve. I see sitatuations where each of them would be helpful when watching movies and listening to music.

Which is better for movie watching?

"flat" does that. I know the manual is terrible but this info is there.

Like music it depends on your personal taste, your speakers and your room acoustics. For example, if the existing sound in your room is bright, you might choose "Audyssey". If you room is a bit on the dull side, you might choose "flat". For me, I don't notice much difference for movie watching. For music, "Audyssey" sounds better to me.

Nick

Flat and three roll-off curves.

Since I don't want to spend $6K for Audyssey Pro, power amp, and pre/pro/receiver

Kal, leaving the subwoofer freq aside, can you opine how close the receiver MultEQ XT gets to the Pro version?

I'm thinking of just handling bass EQ separately, perhaps even with the upcoming SVS Audyssey solution.

Thanks

Impossible to say. How much improvement does the XT make for an AVR vs. how much improvement the SEQ makes for a system of separates? If I could try the Pro software with an AVR I might know but that's not likely to happen.

EDIT: Oh, if I get a pre/pro with XT, I might do it.

Thanks Kal.

Here's some exciting news - I got an email from Chris at Audyssey earlier this week in response to me asking about some sort of loudness control or at least a custom target curve. The problem I have is that I listen at much lower SPL than reference, and Chis confirmed that most people do - in general about 10db down.

TACT has a 2-channel solution called DRC (Dynamic room correction) which, I believe, is a dynamic loudness applied on top of a calibrated flat response. They are soon releasing a multichannel version.

Chris didn't go into specifics, but he did say that one of their partner manufacturers is releasing a new series in a couple of months with their new technology. This new stuff will be adressing the "loudness-issue" and (quote) "a couple of others that have been overlooked".

Very exciting!

Who are TACT's partner mfgr's?

Anyway, I'm sure it will cost $K, and if I'm not mistaken all it takes to get a satisfactory passive solution is some caps & resistors connected to the volume pots.

The TACT sidenote was a bit misplaced. What I meant to say was that Audyssey is releasing a similar technology very soon. The TACT will be expensive, but probably not the new Audyssey equipped receivers.

It could be Denon, Onkyo, Sherwood or maybe one or two more.

A passive solution would require 8 carefully matched sets of components (one for each channel). Doing it in the digital domain is way better.