Answered in the FAQ - see link below.
Answered in the FAQ - see link below.
Yes - if you set an 80Hz crossover, everything below 80Hz goes to your subwoofer.
LPF of LFE is something else and is explained here:
I recall reading that they don't generally have a lot of content in the LFE that is above 80Hz BICBW. If FilmMixer is about he might chime in and give us a definitive answer. When I have experimented with changing the LPF of LFE to 80Hz I have never noticed any difference. Mine is set at 120Hz and has been there for ages - no intention of changing it. I don't use the HT for (serious) music listening anyway as you know, so that isn't an issue for me.
I'll post those Sub 2 Pro settings in the other thread soon.
It's impossible to say - depends on what you mean by "better". They both purport to do the same thing - to electronically EQ the room and system together. Both have multiple mic positions, both apply correction to peaks and dips (limited for the latter), both are able to run in 'automatic' mode. ARC can only correct for 7 speakers, Audyssey can correct for 11 if that is important to you. ARC (I think) uses an individually calibrated mic (as does Audyssey Pro but not XT32 etc). ARC has the ability to calibrate separately for music and movies, with different crossovers, filters etc. Audyssey only has the music and movie target curves option. Both systems keep their proprietary information secret for obvious commercial reasons, so we will never know precisely how they work. I think if you wanted to try both systems to compare them it would be very difficult because there would be too many variables, so only listening over a long period would perhaps help. I believe Kal Rubinson tested both for Stereophile and came to the conclusion that he preferred Audyssey, if that is any help to you.
It may come down to your preferred choice of AVR/AVP. If you really want to go with Anthem then you will have ARC. If you prefer to go with Onkyo or Denon (and a few others) you will have Audyssey. If you are going to go for Audyssey I would strongly suggest that you go for a unit with XT32 as it is significantly better than the lesser Audyssey variants.
There are other options of course. Pioneer has its MCACC system but AIUI that doesn't EQ the bass which to me makes it entirely pointless. Yamaha has its YPAO system, about which I know nothing I am afraid.
I have tried to be unbiased above - but you are asking in the Official Audyssey Thread, so expect people here to come down on the side of Audyssey! Similarly, if you ask your question in an Anthem or ARC thread, I'd expect a bias towards ARC.
I can tell you that XT32 has the capability to make a tremendous improvement to the performance of your system in your room and it is one feature that I would not be without in any AVR I bought (or Pro capability as well of course - even better, but much more expensive).
You might also want to research Trinnov and TACT if you haven’t done so already.
Having recently upgraded to a 9.1 AVR and already having hard-wired Rear Surround speakers, I added 2 Wides and 2 Heights in front (all speakers are Def Tech). Given that Wides/Heights are prioritized over Rear Surrounds, I went with both wide/high and am not using the nice rear surrounds still in place. Today I had a thought about using the rears also by connecting them with the Front Height outputs along with the actual front heights. My assumption is that since the height info is mostly ambient sound in Audyssey DSX or Neo-6, it is much less directional than the wides or even the side surrounds. So, I connected them that way and tried a scene from Thor with rain overhead. The whole soundstage sounded deeper and the rain truly sounded like it was in the ceiling. The fronts heights are directional radiators, but the existing rears are bipoles. At first I was concerned about this, but decided that was probably a good thing since I don't want specific direction from the rears, even on Height settings.
I plan to look through my blu rays and see what good material I have on hand to test further, but would welcome any input on why my idea is either good or bad. Should I consider connecting the rears to the side surrounds instead? Or should I abandon this experiment completely? I have big Def Tech towers w/ subs for L/R/C, midsized BPVX surrounds and a dedicated SVS sub. I added Pro Monitor 1000's for the wides (best compromise I could find in Def Tech for monopole) and 800's for the front heights. The room is 20' wide with a 10.6' wide 2.35 screen and the rear surrounds are back at about 27'. Seating is at 13'. I am very close to the exact 30°, 45° and 60° across the front and the sides are at about 100-110°. Appreciate any thoughts on this.
DSX derives the Height information from the front R & L channels. So by connecting in this unorthodox way you are sending front L&R information to the rear surrounds. I'd expect a dog's dinner to result from that TBH.
If you want to hear just what is in those height channels, disconnect the rest of your speakers and have a listen. With DSX you will be surprised - it sounds pretty much like the front L&R have been shunted up to the ceiling most of the time. Dolby PLIIz is, IMO, a better height solution. (It derives the information from the surround channels).
Well FWIW, my take on it is that it makes no more sense than connecting your surrounds to the front channels and your wides to your rear surrounds. IOW, it just completely ruins the careful mix that some dedicated mixer spent weeks agonising over. If you like the way it sounds, that's fine of course - it's your system - but if you value even an attempt at hearing what the Director and mixer intended, then forget it.
I don't know what AVR you have but if you had a Denon 4311 you would be able to add a two channel amp and send rear surround information to the rear surrounds! How's that for an idea?!
Sorry if I sound a bit abrasive - but you did ask for opinions, and this one is mine
TACT does I think.
It's Dynamic Volume you need for that not Dynamic EQ.