"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 1882

Feri,
Thank you for your suggestions.
I do like those reflections, I always liked larger than life sound. At one time I fancied Mirage omnis, but funds were tight, and now I have other priorities in life.

The speakers, the electronics and the TV are located in the "chopped off" corner of the room. So, in a sense, it is a diagonal setup. The surrounds are in the worst possible place. The plane of the two surrounds is not parallel with the plane of the two mains. I don't mind the center's position, I have no problem with dialogues. After all, why have I RC if it can't cope with a suboptimal center speaker placement?

Regarding the subwoofer, it is a front firing sub and it is not a Jamo. All speakers are dirt cheap System Fidelity. The 5.1 setup was some 150 USD (32000 HUF).
I tried three places for the sub, and the current place is the best possible. The freq. response of the other speakers are not bad, but they all have a nasty sounding peak around 4K so a good EQ is necessary. Audyssey took care of it.
This is a very-very compromised setup but thanks to Audyssey it is far from unlistenable. Without room correction (and DEQ) I would be forced to argue with the wife about the floor plan, the placement of furniture, and so on. Doesn't worth the hassle. Before the complete makeover of our apartment I had a more regular setup (not diagonal) and it was better, but the room looks much nicer now (she was right), and it will remain this way.

T

Exactly. I tried to be diplomatic.

I don't like to make choices, but if I were forced to choose between the Zealot and the Skeptic, I would side with the latter. JMHO.

and now we see the point at which Feri will actually snap

(ducks before the mods arrive)

This is a mention about first reflections when Chris from Audyssey was asked about Tom Holman's remark about you "can't correct a first reflection electronically".This was his response from an old Audyssey thread post.

It is out of context. What Tom was trying to say was that it's not possible to differentiate between early reflections and later effects. By looking at the entire response over the first 200 ms or so we can correct for the effects that happen in that time window. We don't have a separate way of dealing with early reflections and another method for dealing with standing waves and another for the reverberant field. The filter tries to correct for the combined effects of these problems by looking at what they do at multiple locations around the room.

But this is just audio we're talking about here, and quite frankly I personally don't see the need to hop all over Feri. I don't agree with him, but there is an ignore function for those that simply can't resist reading his posts, or alternatively, as I do chuckle and move on if I don't want to play the back-and-forth thing.

Its not like he's on here promoting NAMBLA....

And btw, you don't know somebody's circumstances and there has been tragic events in similar situations on this forum. Feri strikes me as a nice guy, let up.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Edited by Gooddoc - 8/28/12 at 3:49pm

On a timeline Skeptics will settle down to become Zealots when questions are answered. Just a matter of time and age. If not then they remain Skeptics for a bit longer than they expected. In the end nothing matters when looked at from the universe. Too sad, ain't it?

nice NAMBLA reference Gooddoc

Yea, how often do you get to pull that quiver?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Well one thing, this thread has cooled my heels on the idea of getting a Denon ARV in order to try out Audyssey. From my reading up on the subject, the general trend (outside of Audyssey's own literature and a few fanboys) is that it may be a good thing for HT movie audio... but in a more music orientated system, maybe not as beneficial. So I may as well keep my money in my pocket and stick with the Yama for now.

Well, can we NOW return this thread to some sort of sanity, and answer actual questions?

Kiwi2 - how are you defining a music oriented system? Just two-channel stereo? What kind of gear do you have?

I listen to quite a lot of multichannel music (particularly BluRays - I've been particularly enjoying Porcupine Tree's "Anesthesize" after reading some of the rave reviews of it on the Surround Sound thread, as well as things like Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" and Talking Head's "Stop Making Sense"), and with a 5.1 or better yet, 5.2 system, I've found that Audyssey XT32 does a great job in managing room gain, and generating a wider and more wraparound surround sound effect due to being able to EQ subs and satellites together, with the same degree of resolution. XT32 can EQ multiple subs as well.

One advantage Audyssey offers over Yamaha's YMAO is that you can apply room correction below 30 Hz, which is helpful for deep bass for multichannel BluRay music (yes, it can exist).

Don't let yourself get swayed by the insider bickering between a few people on this thread. While we have a few Zealots here, there's also some people with fine technical skills that can help you to work with Audyssey.

For what it's worth, I moved from an MCACC system on Pioneer to Audyssey XT32 this year (and bought the Audyssey Pro Kit, which is another subject altogether), and I will tell you that having the sub EQ and Audyssey's DEQ (Dynamic EQ) for listening below reference level is well worth the learning curve.

You might want to ask specific AVR questions on the Denon 4311 thread (probably the most common AVR you'll find on Audyssey's list, although there's some Onkyo/Integra users as well). Unless product availability or price is an issue, I wouldn't consider anything that doesn't have XT32, and not the less capable XT if possible.

I think it would be a mistake to conclude that Audyssey technology is beneficial only for HT use and not music.

For example, there is no doubt that MultEQ, particularly XT32, provides a substantial improvement of the bass frequencies which, in turn, clears up the midrange which may have previously been masked by overpowering bass. You can translate this into music terms -- tight and accurate bass guitars and drums, clear piano notes, distinct vocals, etc.

I also don't think it is accurate to say that only "a few fanboys" believe that Audyssey technology is good for music-oriented systems. There may be a lot of debates in this thread about how MultEQ works but it doesn't mean that the posters do not appreciate the improvements that Audyssey makes. I think that Gooddoc nailed it when he effectively stated that MultEQ definitely improves sound quality and we attempt to explain how this is done through measurements but sometimes, we don't know what exactly to measure. If we measure the wrong things, it appears that MultEQ is a scam but in truth, the great majority of the posters in this thread know otherwise.

Mark
Edited by streetsmart88 - 8/28/12 at 4:47pm

Sigh. I don't post a lot here but, as an owner of a Denon 4311 with Audyssey XT32, I would say to you to not be swayed by the frankly very small criticisms of Audyssey you've read here recently. If you truly read the posts that have even recently been made, it seems to me most everyone loves what Audyssey is doing for their system but it's not necessarily the ultimate panacea for perfect sound. Frankly you shouldn't expect anything that is currently out there to be that and I doubt you expect that.

For myself I LOVE the job my Denon AVR does using Audyssey both for movies as well as music. I wouldn't be without it for either. I can say if you check the Denon 4311 thread located here http://www.avsforum.com/t/1274153/the-official-denon-avr-4311ci-avr-a100-thread-no-price-talk and ask if getting the Denon AVR with Audyssey was money well spent and if most everyone there is satisfied with their sound for both movies and music you'd get a near unanimous YES.

Again I just hate seeing someone being turned off buying an AVR with Audyssey due to the pointless (IMO) bickering that has been going on in this thread for the past 3-4 days. Usually folks here are more concerned with answering questions for folks new to Audyssy and its set up or problems anyone might be having getting good results (which are often solved with suggesting different approaches).

Anyway I hope you enjoy your home theater whether you do or don't purchase an AVR with Audyssey.
Edited by IceTBC - 8/28/12 at 4:27pm

The irony is that I switched from Pioneer to Denon largely due to the bickering on the SC-57 thread about Pioneer's lack of support, and the higher technical knowlege of audio and acoustics on the 4311 and the Audyssey thread. The grass is always greener....

Otherwise, +100 on this. You couldn't have said it better.

Why are you guys talking about NAMBLA?Your going to get red flagged by big brother! Even though most of them are the ones who are members lol!


Markus, here are some impulse response graphs I found of Dirac Live for comparison to Audyssey.http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=106157

They are of course predicted responses and not the actual measured response.Dirac claims that their predicted responses, after thousands of real measured post results they've performed, are very comparable.

What do you think?


The original impulse response measurements for the nine measured positions.




The post-filter predicted impulse responses at the nine measurement positions.





The original measured average and predicted average impulse response.

Honestly, at its most basic level, it is a room correction and timbre-matching technology. If you think removing the room's signature and integrating surrounds with LCR and sub(s) with main channels is desirable, then go for it. The other stuff, Dynamic Volume, Dynamic EQ and DSX come along for the ride and you may or may not find them useful.

For me, MultEQ XT 32 (and Audyssey Pro) fall into the "cold, dead hands" category.

Especially Audyssey Pro...but I'd put independent measurement (REW, XTZ, or OmniMic) in combination with Pro in the same category, once you get used to the idea of the response curve from Audyssey as a palette to work with, like a work of art that needs to be tweaked to realize your vision (or as flat a response curve as you can get). But you can always step back and admire...

I mostly listen to a lot of 2ch music upmixed into multichannel. With the Yamaha I have I use its front presence channel as surrogate wides. This is why I am looking at a Denon 3313 as it officially supports a wide channel. (not to mention I would like to try DSX) The front presence channel on the Yamaha doesn't offer any bass management or EQ or anything. I have already got the bass response in my room pretty flat down to 20hz (see... yes I still have a few rough patches further up) I feel if I was after an improvement in bass I would spend the money on some more powerful sealed subs instead.

This is my room at the moment. The AVR with pre-outs to 3 amps with Monitor Audio GX50 fronts, Newform Research R630 wides and Dynaudio DM2/6 side surrounds. Two Mirage Prestige S10 subs.

I have just been reading more of the 3313 manual and it does appear to have a lot of manual adjustment options anyhow, if some reason I don't find I like Audyssey. I may get it yet!

kiwi2,
Make no mistake, despite the impressions you may have inadvertently gotten from some of the debates here fanboyism aside, Audyssey is a very powerful room correction tool and is very useful in getting the best out of your system. This being the AV Science forum, some of us simply try to focus more on the science aspect of things. As such we use science to find out what is or isn't possible to improve our utilization of the technology, and to temper our expectations wrt the results. The majority of us here try to walk the fine line of optimizing our setups (and being very pleased with the results) vs. falling down the rabbit hole of "blind-faith audiophilia" wherein lies the realm of $20,000 speaker cables.

Audyssey is a great complement to an audio system for both HT and music. As long as we're aware that Audyssey has its limitations and what they are, as well as which areas are best handled via other means (acoustic treatment panels for first reflections for example), the results possible are VERY good.

If you happen to be the type of personal who reads EVERYTHING you can to make your own conclusion (as opposed to deliberately ignoring anything that might be contrary to the conclusion you already had before), you may have followed that link at Realtraps by Ethan Winer, reviewing Audyssey MultEQ. The measurements taken in Kal Rubinson's setup showed little effect from MultEQ in the bass region. Don't be fooled into believing it doesn't do much. That was an earlier/lower version of MultEQ.

The current XT32 version is VERY effective (but of course, there ARE still limits). Google the comparison between Audyssey MultEQ XT32 vs Anthem ARC, by Kal Rubinson for his 'Music In The Round' article in Stereophile, you can see just how effective it is for reducing/eliminating bass ringing. A fair number of us here can provide our own measurements showing how great the improvement is, but folks might consider Kal's review a more reliable source. His conclusion BTW, was that both are very effective, and to his ears, sound equally good. The graphs seem to be in XT32's favor over ARC, though whether that is audible to someone is unknown. The slight advantage XT32 had over ARC in the measurements wasn't audible to Kal, but both were notably better than no room correction.


Max

hmm... yes I see the 3313 only has MultEQ XT. I may be better off to hang fire and save up more for the 4311 with XT32.

Definitely. I would certainly consider the price difference absolutely worth it.

Thanks go to Markus and other members for having the curiosity, and taking the time to take pre-out measurements showing the marked improvements in the way the filter taps are allocated in XT32 vs XT. The filter tap allocation in XT32 shows far greater density at lower frequencies (where they're most beneficial) tapering off at higher frequencies (where their effects are either negligible, or even potentially detrimental), as opposed to XT where it is the opposite, with few taps down low and greater and greater density the higher the frequencies go, i.e. minimal beneficial down low where it's needed most in the frequency band and way too much up high where comb filtering makes it pointless in the higher octaves.

Seeing those pre-out measurements, I personally wouldn't bother with anything below XT32.


Max
Edited by djbluemax1 - 8/28/12 at 6:59pm

Kiwi2, it seems your speakers are not from the same OEM. There is a distinct advantage to timbre-matched speakers and the more we optimize the baseline, the better the result with Audyssey will be.

Hopefully the 4311 will continue to be available for at least a while longer in the 1.3K range. The newer Onk 818 has XT32 (but no subEQHT) and was priced a few hundred less than that a while ago.

I disagree with the notion that Audyssey is only good for movies. I use it for 2.1 music listening (classical and some jazz) and 5.1 surround music as well as movies. Audyssey MultiEQ XT (Denon 4310) and an SVS AS-EQ1 (a combo that offers most of the benefits of XT32) makes a big difference in the clarity of sound I'm getting, especially in the midrange and the bass. I don't use DynamicEQ or Dynamic Volume at all with music, and I haven't messed around with height speakers or wide speakers. It makes an audible improvement in the sound I get from my system.

Really? I hadn't noticed that before!


So spending money for a TX32 AVR will be a waste then? I would be better off spending my budget on matching speakers first then? And MultEQ XT is sh!t so I shouldn't waste money buying a cheap AVR....

I may just forget the whole thing and stick with my Yama for now then.
Edited by kiwi2 - 8/28/12 at 9:03pm

His opinion was that the ETC graphs didn't look good. Too many and too strong early reflections. The first reflections shown is almost as strong as the original sound and comes back very fast. That will mess up the sound. With my taste for rooms and sound in mind, he suggested that we build broadband absorbers in the front of the room, following old school LEDE design, Perforated in the front and back for 25hz and slat absorbers on the side of the room for 47Hz. Then I will build a membrane absorber on the backwall with diffusers on it. That's about it.

Jens conclusion of the ETC graphs with and without Audyessy was that it just can't fix things as early reflections, just as he thought before measuring.

 

Feri - he's reporting that Audyssey makes no difference to the reflections he mentioned - support to JonasW's similar assertion backed by his graphs.

 

Are you now ready to comment on those graphs and why Audyssey apparently does nothing to tame the reflections?

 

I’d also like to read your comments on how Audyssey is supposed to deal with the 'anti-spike' and/or have any effect whatsoever on sounds once they have left the speaker. Please exclude from your reply that Audyssey creates an inverse of the spike, adds it to the original and thus cancels the spike.  You already made that clear - the question is what happens when that new, processed signal leaves the speaker and hits the wall and thus creates a brand new set of reflections. How can Audyssey deal with those reflections?

 

I just can’t see how it can be possible to work the way Audyssey says it works in their marketing literature - but as you seem to understand it, can you please share it with me?

A good philosophical observation there, Jerry. I agree with you.

 

As your post seems to be at least in part directed at me, I will reply with my POV.

I agree with you 100% that Feri is a nice guy. But on a science forum is one supposed to let erroneous statements just go unchallenged? This latest debate started because of the assertion that Audyssey works in a certain way, which seems to be at odds with the actual scientific measurements made. One side of the debate is highly sceptical about Audyssey's claims and the other side of the debate supports Audyssey's claims but refuses to explain why the sceptics are wrong.

 

Nobody has made any personal attacks on anyone and the debate is being conducted in a civil manner. If anyone, on either side, chooses to opt out of the debate then it is simple for him to do so, but if one continues to respond to questions asked (albeit without providing the answers sought) then one must assume that that party to the debate is willing to continue the debate,  surely?

 

The debate is entirely on topic for the thread and, personally, I think it is useful to know if Audyssey can or cannot tame reflections. As I have said, I cannot see how Audyssey can change sounds once they have left the speaker, but I am fully open to being proved wrong (and I hope I am - this would be a fabulous extra facility of MultEQ!). Feri has said he understands it 'as an engineer' and all I want him to do is explain it to me as a 'non-engineer' or at least direct me to a source that can explain it (NOT Audyssey marketing which I have read and which supports my view, in my opinion, that Audyssey cannot in fact do what it is purported to do - a view reinforced by the only actual evidence so far presented).  What would nail it for me is for someone to produce some graphs which show a lot of reflections when Audyssey is OFF and which then disappear or are substantially reduced when Audyssey is ON. I suspect that will never happen.

I'm not sure about your sense of humor but will give you the benefit of the doubt and treat your flippant responses as though they are info-seeking questions.

The overall goal is better SQ, right? MultEQXT is likely to be an effective part of the solution but the very limited, basic graphic Manual EQ in the AVR3313 is not. MultEQXT is considered by many as more effective than MCACC, and XT32 even more so, for a # of reasons. .

My comments were based on my approach, which is to look at the gear and the room as a system and to make a plan for upgrading it, keeping in mind projected budget. A basic principal is that whatever the DSP, it will yield better results as you optimize the rest of your system. Another basic principal is that addressing the weakest link (s) in the system will usually yield most bang-for-the-buck in improved SQ. For some folks, that means better (or better timbre-matched) speakers, for some it's doing a sub crawl, for some it's better speaker placement, for others it's better DSP RC. All of the above was required to get my system to where it is today.

AFAIK your current AVR's DSP RC is particularly weak on bass correction, which is THE most crucial area to correct to improve overall SQ. As you already have two subs, IMO you should, if you have not already, do a sub crawl. This can be done at no cost by ear but is best done using something like OmniMic. You could also consider some of the relatively inexpensive options for EQing the subs which will complement MCACC while you save up for upgrades.

It's certainly the case that if you have a well-treated room the argument in favour of Audyssey, or any other electronic room EQ, diminishes. But most people don't have well-treated rooms and especially not dedicated rooms so then the issue becomes one of whether to suffer the negative impact of the room on the sound or to use some from of electronic EQ.

 

Personally, I don't buy into the schtick that Audyssey is good for movies but not good for music. Audyssey has no way of knowing what the sound is or what we characterise it as. Sound is sound. And the room is the most significant 'component' in any system. The room doesn't 'work' differently if the sound being reproduced in it is a movie or if it is a music track. It will ring, resonate, reflect, distort etc in exactly the same way regardless of what you slipped into the Bluray player. A system will only be as good as its weakest link and if the room itself is that weakest link (as it usually is) then it has to be dealt with if one is going to hear the other parts of the system working to their best capability. In that regard, Audyssey MultEQ XT32 does a great job.