"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 1870

Gentlemen,

Is the subject of all the vivid postings on the issue of phase alignment at or around the crossover splice after about 2-3 days coming to a halt with no conclusion derived or we are still waiting for some magical input to appear and revolutionary change the way we need to think (and do) about all that has been discussed here already. Just curious!

Anyone?

You are assuming, (...and you know what happens when you do that, right?), that Audyssey actually ACHIEVES the Audyssey target curve in the listening area. You would be wrong. I can take measurements anywhere inside the area that I use to take the measurements, and every one of them will be different... and NONE of them will be the Audyssey target curve. I can the take one of those measurements and make it accurate to the Audyssey target curve with some modifications of the settings. So which one is "accurate"? I know which one I want to listen to. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know what you're gonna say... preference vs. reference blah, blah blah. Well, you can sit in your "inaccurate" seat if you like. I'll take my "accurate" one any time... thanks.

Craig

I commented on the accuracy of one mic position to calibrate. Sorry, I don't have much interest in your topic.

"ACHIEVES"? I could have sworn I said " comes close" which is exactly what I want out of my Audyssey calibration for my listening area. I have no interest in a best calibration for one seat at the expense of others for my muti-person HT. You can certainly have at playing Whack-a-Mole with your cheap consumer measurement stuff, I have too many movies to watch... thanks.

When has that ever happened?

Call it forum life, eh?

Well, we MAY not have an answer soon, or ever. But can you agree there will NEVER be an answer if it wasn't discussed at all?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Catch 22, isn't it?

That's pretty much the pattern I use with Pro too. Gives me a superb result. I am only interested in optimising the sound at the MLP.

That's what usually happens. Until the next time, of course

 

But you can agree that some people are only interested in the best calibration for one seat, right? Those people will use a tight measuring pattern around that one seat - after all, one seat is a "listening area" as you called it earlier - it's just a small listening area. Others, like you, will want the best calibration for several seats and will use a wider measuring pattern to achieve that end. What's the issue over that?

He didn't say one mic position, did he?  He said "a smaller radius centred around a given seat". That seems to suggest several mic positions, but, er, centred around a given seat. Am I reading what he wrote incorrectly?

Easy to see this is going nowhere, better to just drop it.

True. Ultimately it comes down to basically the same thing - correct for a small area or a large one. Neither is right or wrong, depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If you're correcting for a small area, phase adjustments have some value. For a large, probably not worthwhile.

Hi guys!

I have a question for the Audyssey PROs here.

I recently bought an Onkyo TX-NR818 - and I could not be more happy with the results from Audyssey MultEQ XT32.
It really banned the standing waves in my room and just sounds awesome.
I made a direct comparison to a Pioneer VSX-2021 with Advanced MCACC and as you might think - MCACC did not even stand a chance.
The results were just embarassing in comparison to XT32.


My question:

The following content is from the Audyssey HP:
I am using a 5.0 speaker configuration:

Front: Sonus faber Liuto (low frequency response extended through active equalization by means of a Nubert ATM - the speakers achieve approx. 29Hz/-3dB with that)
Center: Sonus faber Liuto Smart
Rear: B&W DM602 S3

So of course - the front is on full range and center + rears are crossed over (80Hz center, 50Hz rears).


Does only the 512x filter resolution (satellites) apply in my setup or does the full resolution (including subwoofer 512x) apply since basically my fronts are doing the subwoofer-work...?

Can somebody tell me?
The question is just out of interest... I'm not planning to change my configuration because of it - since it is awesome as it is () AND XT32 banned the standing waves, even if only half the resolution may apply.

Hi markus - I do know that, hence my quote.

But that can mean two things:

A) 512x resolution in total, no matter the speaker setup
B) 512x resolution for satellites and 512x resolution for subwoofer(s) = 1024x in total (my understanding so far)

...or basically - to simplify - do I benefit from "all there is" with my 5.0 setup or do I not?

 

Exactly. I can never understand why people find it hard to grasp that some of us only care about one seat - the MLP. I have extensively experimented with taking measurements around the room and optimising for a wider area and also with taking measurements in a tight pattern around the MLP - and for me there is no doubt whatsoever that the latter works best in my circs and with my requirements. Why wouldn't it?  Optimising a broad area is bound to introduce compromises to get a good result across several seats. All I care about is the best possible result across ONE seat.

Thank you markus!

So I do benefit from all there is, great!

Well I (sitting on the MLP) will probably barely benefit from them. But the other seating positions would surely benefit from a couple of subs.

This however is for the future - when I have a separate home cinema room.
For now the living room will remain subless. It is also neither easy nor cheap to find subs that can equal the bass quality of my Liutos. Only very good closed subs can do that.

It does not make sense to discuss that in this thread.

However I did not mean the ability to reach lowest frequencies by bass "quality".
Bass quality for me is a fast and clean response without sounding muddy when listening to music.
Most subs that I listened to cannot achieve this. The ones that could were all closed and expensive.
But this is just what I experienced. I am sure there are also some good ported subs that can achieve a clean response.

Besides not all ported speakers using 8" bass drivers have the same bass quality.


But again... too much off-topic here. Sorry for that.

It's actually 8,66 inches (220mm).
Do you mean that Audyssey MultEQ XT32 can and will do the same thing that the ATM is doing?
I cannot imagine it does. That would basically mean that Audyssey is a danger to all speakers and subs that natively won't go down to 20Hz.
I thought Audyssey "respects" the limitations of your speakers?
I dont listen to levels that endanger my speakers. Sure, the drivers do have to do some extra "stroke" with the ATM but the Scan-Speak drivers are tough.

I think your question is: Is the unused processing that would have been used on the LFE channel reassigned to the L/R channels because the LFE is being sent there? Is that a correct interpretation of your question?? If so, the answer is "No." The downmixing of 5.1 to 5.0 happens *before* Audyssey EQ. Therefore Audyssey only "sees" the downmixed, L/R + LFE signal and only applies the single filter tap set of the L/R channels to those signals. The L/R channels don't get the "512x" processing of the LFE channel PLUS the "512x" processing of the L/R channels. The filters for the LFE channel remain unused. In addition, the filtering for the rear surround channels and any DSX channels, (Wides or Heights), remains unused. They don't get reassigned to the other channels either. You only get the one filter set that is available for the channels in use.

PS. I also agree with Markus that adding subs would be beneficial, and not just because you would get to use the Audyssey 512x processing on the subwoofer channel.

Craig

Gosh, that looks like a smoothed graph. What was the resolution of that measurement?

Craig