"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 1627

Hi chambers, actually intellivolume will not solve your current problem. It's a nice feature, but intended for a global setting of differences in input levels (all speakers at once by the same amount), yet in order to use that (and other freatures) properly you still need to bring your HT system to reference level. Please note, since the advent of Audyssey's DynEQ all speakers are calibrated individually and separately from each other, including the sub(s).

Among the very many tips & hints you have received so far I think your best option if you want to keep your Klipschs and your Integra (why wouldn't you, eh?) would be to follow batpigs advice (manually level match the system after running Audyssey).

With this solution you will no longer have film reference level at 0 dB reading on the AVR's display, but at least you will have all your speakers calibrated to reference. Its like setting your watch 1 hour ahead and when it shows 2 o'clock you shouldn't forget that the actual time is 1 o'clock!!

And then you can tinker intellivolume!

Keith, aren't the settings of intellivolume ignored during auto-setup?

I was addressing the supposed irony of DSX vs reference that was claimed to derive from an assessment of the former as preference. In that context, I made the argument that Audyssey does not, for my money, claim to be the champion of reference.


I have no beef with Audyssey trying to establish widely-applicable psychoacoustics principles, be it DSX, DynEQ, or something else. Admittedly, it's different from calibrating a system to some externally agreed-to reference curve, but I can't see how that can even remotely be held against the company, much less justify a charge of irony.


I absolutely agree that these matters are subject to, indeed deserve, criticism. So, let's do that instead of brandishing terms like `irony'.


What I wrote was the following, from which I would think it was clear that I am referring to people that align themselves with the reference-vs-preference distinction such as it is.


Reference is a reasonably well-defined concept: the acoustics part is clear, the psycho-acoustics part less so. Preference may or may not be well-defined: something someone likes vs not reference vs something else. I don't really have an opinion about these definitions. What I find counter-productive, as I said, is the conflation between the technical concepts and people: what sometimes appear to be framed as allegiances to one or the other technical concept.


There really isn't. Chris has made the argument himself: if you want reference in the strict sense, use MultEQ; if you want something else, you may benefit if you go there through reference; in particular, reference allows Audyssey to give us access to things like DynEQ, DSX, and more, which some people clearly are interested in.


I see your argument, but the `preference' here is too all-encompassing for my liking to really inform any sort of debate about the facts.

Yes, definitely. You are right - he could use IV after calibration but it will be of no use for him in trying to solve his problem of hitting the stops at -12dB.

I've never used IV - IIRC it's designed to allow you to adjust different sources to play at the same perceived levels, so if your BD player has more output than your satellite box, you can adjust them to the same level so you don't have to keep fiddling with the MV when you change sources. Isn’t it?

EDIT: I have edited my earlier post.

I think so.

Then they should stop touting DSX as being more "accurate". DSX deliberately messes with the surround channels to meet Audyssey's own idea of preference. It is not more accurate it is less accurate. It may still be pleasing to some people of course but it is not more accurate to the source.


Any deviation from reference is preference. What's to debate?

Yup ... just like the "Source Level" setting on Denon AVRs.

1) Audyssey claims to have substantial data to back up their psychoacoustics-targetted technologies.

2) Your assertion that DSX is less accurate than not-DSX presupposes that there is well-defined notion of envelopment, etc., and that it is possible to define a metric over it.

3) Audyssey's claim, as far as I can tell, is that envelopment appears to be subject to similar principles as are captured in the Equal Loudness Curves, and that DSX appears to compensate for some of the associated drawbacks.

Bottom-line: I think we are talking at cross-purposes here.


That's one definition: preference = not reference. By that definition, disconnecting all but one of 11.1 speakers following calibration, and putting in place a 2,000Hz HPF for that speaker is preference. You still think there is nothing to debate?

I don't doubt it. But it still isn’t reference and they need to make that clear in their descriptions instead of describing it as "more accurate".


Others, more qualified than I am, can answer that - but the aim (of reference) is to reproduce what the director or mixer intended and/or to match a defined curve and any deviation from that (e.g. by softening the surrounds and altering their content) is therefore preference.


It "compensates" by changing the surround content and levels away from what the mixer intended - that is to say, away from the 5.1 mix that was originally created. When people spend countless millions of dollars creating a soundtrack, and when Ridley Scott or Spielberg or whoever, says "that is what I want people to hear" then that is what I want to hear. Just try the simple experiment I described and listen to what DSX is doing to your surrounds. Do you like what it is doing? If you do, that is fine. Your preference and Audyssey's preference align. Personally, I dislike what it is doing because it is a form of audible distortion to the original sound and, in this example, a form or distortion that I personally very much dislike.


This is eminently possible I don't see what we are discussing. Any deviation from reference is preference - surely you agree with that? I am not saying "don't do it!" - if people want preference that is totally fine. I've just spent days discussing how I want my bass hotter than Audyssey sets it - preference. It's fine. That is a preference I like. Having my surrounds messed with is a preference I dislike. And Audyssey do mislead about the intention of DSX, IMO.


Yep. Any deviation from reference is preference. If someone prefers the sound of just one speaker with a 2kHz HPF in place, that is fine, for them. Personally I'd think it stupid, but that's the whole point of preference. It's personal.

There are at least 3 parameters in play for matching the mixer situation: spectral balance, spatial balance, temporal matters. Reference as we discuss it pertains only to the first of these, and even then it's subject to what DynEQ attempts to compensate for.

I'm happy for us to disagree. If you like DSX, then use it. I don't and I don't.

Here is what I am thinking. After I run Audyssey, manually set the trims to balance the speakers. Cut the loudest speaker by 11 and less on the rest. This gets me as close to 0 on MV as possible with level matched speakers. Then set MV at 0 and run my test dvd and use IV to set the levels to 75. This way I am at 0 MVfor dynamic eq to function correctly and all speakers are level matched.

Please stop conflating people and technologies.

Is that all you've got? OK, I rephrase: "if some people like DSX, then let them use it. I don't and I don't."

Look ReneV, all I am saying is that I do not like what DSX does to my surrounds and I have given my reasons why. If you don't like my reasons, that's tough frankly but I am not going to engage in an endless argument with you about it. Everyone is free to set up their system in any way they choose - if they want to use DSX, then use it. If they don't, then don't.

If you disagree that Audyssey is being economical with the truth when they say DSX is more 'accurate' then that is fine too. If you have a different view as to what constitutes preference or reference, that is also fine by me. I am not trying to proselytise here but I am able to read very well and I have read what Audyssey say DSX does and it does not accord with reality, at least in my definition of it. DSX distorts and that's it. Some may like that distortion and some may not.

Are you just trying to pick an argument on a slow day? I was discussing DSX and what it does to my surrounds, period. If you don't agree with me, I am very happy with that and can readily agree to disagree. If you try the experiment I suggested please come back and let me know if you liked the surrounds more with DSX Height engaged or less and we can pick it up from there.

What about DTS Neo:X as a substitute ?
Some say it sounds more "natural" in what it does with front and height speakers.

Hi Roger,


Ah "reference vs preference lands"...

Now let's consider "reference" for a second. As should one consider only listening in the way the mix has been done? Just to remain "reference"...

Meaning though if it's 2ch, only listen in Stéréo, 5.1 only in 5.1, 6.1 in 6.1 and 7.1 in 7.1?

Then what's the worth of DPL II (for Stéréo) or DPL IIx (for Stéréo + 5.1) or even DPL IIz (for any), should one put then in the garbage as they are obviously "preference" listenings? Should one never buy 6.1/7.1 mixes if he only owns a 5.1 installation? Not speaking of people watching /DVDs or Blu Rays on TVs...

Yes, I know this may sound slightly provocative, but aren't we in the heart of "reference vs preference-land"?

My own humble opinion is that what we are talking here is (audio) aesthetics. And as we know, we don't all share the same the appreciation of these sort of notions. This is why - always in my opinion -, if it is (relatively) easy to define parameters for a "reference", "preference" will always remain a matter of personal choice, personal taste.

Now for DSX either in it's full (11) or partial (7/9) form, I understand that Audyssey has made some choices which induce a different approach in the presentation between the Front/Rear balance, from what has been made/agreed previously. But to me as a "preference-land" user of DSX 11, this choice translates into something very natural and life-like. "Closest to life-like" being always my own personal preference.

Now is there anything better or more accurate (to what)? Maybe, as I still haven't heard DTS Neo X in it's 11 ch declination.

But as far as today is concerned - and again in my very humble opinion -, DSX 11 is the best aesthetically speaking processing that I have heard so far.

And yes clearly, this is "preference-land" as there is no 11.x mix available today.

"C'est la Vie"? Bien sûr, mais elle sait être magnifique!

Hugo

You realize, of course, that you can lose your "man card" for actually reading a manual. That's in the same category as asking for directions! Shame, Shame, Shame!!!

I have tried that but not in depth. I have read, but this may not be correct, that Neo:X comes into its own in a full 11.1 setup but I have no room for wide speakers so can't try that. In terms of a height-only setup, I still preferred PLIIz over Neo:X. PLIIz seems to me to be the 'least worse' in terms of a) adding some height interest and b) not messing with anything else.

I like sparking conversation on the thread topic, Audyssey, and my comment certainly did that. It was offered in a light-hearted vein, but was admittedly not completely barbless.

Audyssey's claim to fame, raison d'être if you will, Rene, is bringing reference into our theaters. Perhaps their success at that is what makes their "preference" product, DSX, stand out ... as being in conflict with MultEQ. Compounding the matter is that they wrap DSX in their reference cred.

Reference, reference, reference ... here, let's make your theater sound like "the great halls" of the performance world. Excuse me? If everything I listen to was recorded live at a great hall, then sign me up.

Keith went into DSX expecting to enhance his theater experience ... and was underwhelmed. IIRC, Roger's postings on it gave his disappointment an explanation that Keith could say "yeah, that's it" and allow him to move on to try the Dolby (more irony? ) offering.

Focused on what he had not liked about DSX, he could analyze PLIIz. And when he did, he decided that that product was more to his preference for what he wanted to hear.

I am only explaining my opinion on Audyssey and DSX. If others share that opinion then good. If others do not and like what DSX brings to their theater, then that is good as well.

Jeff

Pas du tout! One can listen in any way one chooses - it's your equipment, your ears etc. But once one deviates from whatever the creators of the work intended, then one has entered a preference land of one's own making. that's fine of course, but it is still a different experience than the original creator intended you to have. It's a bit like going to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa and preferring to look at it while wearing green-tinted glasses. One may like that look, but it is not the look that Leonardo intended you to see when he created the painting.


That is great. That is your preference and nobody can really argue against it. Your surround channels are reduced in level by a good few dB, and the apparent content of the surround channels has also been changed, but if you prefer the other benefits of DSX to accurate surround channels, that is entirely up to you. You are no longer listening to what the creators of the piece intended you to hear at the point of creation, but so what? If you like it that way, nobody has a right to tell you that you shouldn’t


Then that is good. But it isn't a faithful representation of the artist's intent. You are not, of course, trying to say that it is. You are saying you prefer the sound the way you have it, regardless of the artist's intent. Horses for courses.


Et alors, nous sommes tous hereux!

LOL! As the great Steve McQueen (the actor not the director) once said: "I am a man who knows, not a man who asks....".

That is an entirely accurate representation of my situation on this.


Exactement!

I'm not sure why my name is attached to this quotation.

I find it highly unlikely that Audyssey reference (in the strict sense of the MultEQ target) is anywhere near elaborate enough to give us what the mixers intended in any sense that will allow us to have reference-vs-preference arguments based on it.

Typo, I'm sure, from re-creating a thread sequence.

I am really clueless on why this has put a bee in anyone's bonnet ...

Jeff

Sure it does, just alter the mic positions until you find a reference that pleases you then construct your arguments from that.

Short of you being a film mixer, I don't see any way for you to make that assessment. Honestly, aren't you just expressing an opinion like the rest of us?

Jeff

Quoting error, sorry. Corrected in my post now.