"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 1676

Audyssey is not Harman's competitor. Audyssey is in business of licensing room correction technology. Harman is a manufacturer and doesn't license their technology to anyone. Besides, the information gained from the comparison, especially when it comes to what factors are important to listener preference, is something that any room correction manufacturer, including Audyssey, can take advantage of (for free).
Exactly. When subjected to double-blind testing, it turned out that the sound people craved (listener preference) was not as complicated as many folks originally assumed. Of course, delivering that sound to multiple seats is a different story.

Hi I upgraded to a Onkyo TX-NR3009 which features Audyssey's fabulous XT32 from a Onkyo TX-SR805. I've been reading this thread, there are some that say to raise the XOs 80hz, but I've also read if you have XT32 to leave your XOs where they are.

I'm currently running a 7.1 PSB Image system, a pair of T45 towers, C40 center, and 4 B15 bookshelf for surrounds. After running Audyssey, my receiver has set my towers at 40hz, my center at 60hz and my surrounds at 50hz. My LFE is set to 120hz. All settings are within the speakers anechoic chamber 3db specs. Should I still raise my XOs to 80hz? If so what benefit would I get? And what's the point of getting towers then if you only need a speaker to go to 80hz?

How useful would the data be without knowing more details on how the testing was done?

You can leave your crossover settings alone when using XT32 unless the amplifiers in your 3009 are running out of steam. If they are, raising the crossovers to 80Hz will free up valuable headroom and allow those amplifiers to power your speakers more easily. The "raise all crossovers to 80 Hz" mantra was more for those who are using XT, which lacked the filters, etc. that XT32 uses.

The point of getting towers (in a HT system) - with XT32 there is absolutely none if your system is equipped with a suitable sub(s), has the bass management properly set up, Audyssey correctly calibrated, speakers correctly positioned, and your room isn't atrocious. Just my opinion. There will probably be others who will vehemently disagree.

Cheers,
SB

Not true.


See below.


That's the same question Audyssey asked. From their point of view, this doesn't make any sense and is money wasted. Their reasoning is as such: a woofer is out of place within a main speaker, because you are not free to move the woofer(s) to its acoustically best position. This is the task of the sub(s), because most room modes fall below the 80 Hz limit and moving the subs to an acoustically optimal position will take care of this, at least to some extent. The THX crossover frequency of 80Hz has been chosen because its the frequency where most people are not able to identify the position of the driver.
It's that simple...

What I had suggested (Harman room correction vs Audyssey room correction PLUS Audyssey loudness compensation) meant that the comparison would no longer be solely between room corrections systems. That's not a "problem" with Olive's comparison, just a different one than he had done. Keep in mind that the Audyssey product included in the comparison (SEQ) didn't have loudness compensation, so comparing it on the merits of room correction alone shouldn't have been a "problem".
The details were in the AES paper: choice of music cuts, number of listeners, results of trials, etc. What is typically linked to is the slide pack that Olive used when he presented that paper at the AES conference. As for usefulness, knowing that smooth response and perceptual flatness were the most preferred qualities would be handy knowledge for any room correction designer. Same with Lyngdorf's paper on trying to find a default target curve that listerners considered most "natural" sounding.

I seem to remember something about Olive's listeners being "trained" or "guided" - I forget the term they used, but I remember that they were quite pleased with the concept.

edit: yes, TRAINED. And it's all coming back to me now what I had found suspicious back then. I'm off this topic ...

Jeff

I don't see what there is to be suspicious about, since they're being transparent. "Trained" listeners get the same results as untrained listeners, just need fewer listening trials. Nothing more complicated than that. It's not like they hide anything. In fact, you can train your listening sensitivity using the same exact training software they use (it's a FREE download).

OK, I guess I shouldn't have said phase/time correction, since many claim to do that.

But AFAIK Trinnov is the only one who does remapping, and it wasn't in the test.

In the interest of full disclosure, I just reacquired a Sherwood R-972, so I do have a (different) dog in this race.

Maybe it's just my nature to be suspicious, but training people how to listen seems like it could also affect their preference. And how do we know that they used what is available now to download?

Jeff

When tested, turns out that training to improve sensitivity doesn't change preference:




It would be pointless for them to go through the time and expense to create a phony version of the training software only to give it away for free. Easier to upload the one they already have. Besides, my local home theatre group went through some of the training when we went on a tour of their facilities. Same program.

Sanjay, just because Harman does not licence their RC (just like Yamaha and Pioneer, etc.), and Audyssey doesn't manufacture AVRs/Pre-Pros, they are still competitors on the RC market from a commercial point of view. Isn't it up to the concious buyer (us) to look into different RC solution before making the "big" decision?

OK, thanks, Sanjay.

The software looks interesting .. you recommend it I'd guess?

I thought the same thing, but it's really only a minor point or at least too minor to "discuss."

Jeff

Agree, ...so minor it shouldn't have been raised by Sanjay!

Competitors for what? Earlier you said that "Audyssey is the biggest competitor Harman would like to defeat!!!". IF Audyssey were to go out of business tomorrow, it's not like Harman would suddenly start licensing their room correction technology to everyone, thereby giving up one of their exclusives. (For the moment, Audyssey has no competition.)

Besides, if they were truly competing in the room correction business, they wouldn't be publishing reseach papers that explained (to everybody) what scores higher on preference tests. That would be like Coke scoring high on taste tests and then publishing what parts of their cola recipe were responsible for that.

Sanjay, I think your posts on technical issues are much more educational than on business issues. Why not keep it that way, eh?!

But then who would correct your comments on business issues?

correct = discuss, ...but I think this is absolutely OT, so no follow up needed.

Agreed. Back to room correction.

How would you set up your subs. Should i calibrate them alone flat to 80hz, or calibrate with the mains which requires less fill from the Aux Sub i just built. My thought would be to calibrate the subs alone before i run Audyssey.....

.... And does Audyssey hipass at 10hz, i notice it seems to

Let me re-phrease it slightly. It is not a problem with the comparison per se. But it is a problem when people are drawing the wrong conclusions from it without knowing the whole story about what was compared and what wasn't compared.

So I just checked my audyssey settings on my Onkyo 885 with the RadioShack meter and the RadioShack showed everything at 70-71 db. Which one am I supposed to believe and could I have a bad audyssey mic?

This question pops up quite often and it's better to trust the Audyssey mic. They are supposedly made to a +/- 2dB tolerance. As I never get up to reference level, I've never worried much about it possibly being a few dB out.

Not to mention you have to be placing the rat shack meter exactly where the audyssey mic was also. I purchased a calibrated mic from cross spectrum labs which is the galaxy audio cm140 which I trust way more than my previous radio shack meter

I have a better meter than yours and an Onkyo 709 with MultEQ XT, and I get the same results as you. I just leave everything as is.

My Rat Shack consistently shows 71.5dB for signals I know to be 75dB.

The RS meter is good for relative measurements, i.e. this channel measure the same as that one, but not good for absolute measurements, i.e. this speaker measures ... 71.5dB for example.

How does it sound?

Jeff

What do you use for a test signal?

I use three test signals. The receiver's internal test tones, THX Optimizer test tones and a test CD that I made with known dB FS record levels. All three must checkout to give the exact same SPL levels to be positive about SPL test levels.

Here's Chris's take on the Harman comparision (from Facebook Audyssey Tech Talk): "In my view it's not a good idea to publish "results" if your technology is one of the ones being compared. It's a no-win situation. If your method comes out on top then you are accused of bias and if it doesn't then you're back to the drawing board."

Chris nailed that for sure, didn't he!?

Hi JPC, though you didn't mention, but I suppose all three of your test signals are -30dBFS band limited pink noise (500 Hz - 2 kHz). Are you using a RatShack SLP meter or else? Don't you think in case the three input signals are equal you're gonna get equal results anyway?