or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779) - Page 1630

post #48871 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by scratch17 View Post

I didn't see any new preamp/processors with XT32 announced at CES. Did I miss an announcement?

Steven

It seems there is still relatively few amps/pre-pro's with XT32,it's been out a while now & I'd expect to see it start to trickle down manufacturers model ranges soon.
Having XT32 myself I wouldn't want to be without it.
post #48872 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Rear/side heights.

That could certainly enhance spaciousness for the rear half but I think the main problem here is that there's no format and therefore no content for delivering realistic spaciousness through wide and height channels. Those additional speakers first have to become discrete channels then we can talk about even more speakers and/or channels.
post #48873 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReneV View Post

Sure, but based on a naive understanding of acoustics rather than of corporate strategy

My point is that frequency response and even what MultEQ does in the time domain, whatever it is, are not the only relevant properties of audio. There's spectral balance (at different volumes), there's spatial balance (at different volumes), there's reflections (in and of themselves and when compared to direct sound), there's speaker location and orientation, and much, much more of lesser apparent importance.

EDIT: I wonder if the Schroeder frequency should have been included in the above list; does anyone know if and how we perceive a lower vs a higher Schroeder frequency? markus767?

Psychoacoustics knows that there is a difference in acoustically small rooms but there's no good understanding of how to link perception to measurements. Harman did some studies but it's just the tip of the iceberg. That's one reason I'm interested in how MultEQ works because being strictly based on measurements Audyssey is doing just that, linking perception and measurements. They claim their approach is based on research but we don't get to see that research and yet they use it for marketing purposes.
post #48874 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Doesn't it makes you wonder why no other room correction system has such a feature?

You make it sound like equal loudness compensation is not needed. I believe it is.
Furthermore, it seems as all other room correction systems have loudness compensation built-in into their target curve. That's a one size fits all approach and it might be good enough but it's not as sophisticated as Dynamic EQ.

By the way, those other room correction systems are often offered in combination with Dolby Volume. That's probably a recipe for disaster.
post #48875 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Biased to A., eh? No wonder!

I'd like to get hold of one of those Sherwood units and give it a try - just to see what Kal described when he deliberately moved his speakers and Trinnov 'magically' put them back again! I read a different review but can't find it now where the reviewer reversed his speaker soundstage (i.e. put the fronts where the surrounds go and vice-versa) and Trinnov actually did 'put them back' where they belonged! Not that I want to go that far, obviously, but in my room I cannot achieve ideal speaker placement so Trinnov would be especially helpful to me. Also, few of us have our centre speaker precisely where it should be and Trinnov can apparently tackle that with ease, and with excellent results.

Now if Audyssey were to develop XT32 along those lines......!! Sadly, I think Audyssey have a different focus these days and that XT32 is not their principal objective any more, so you were probably right when you said that XT32 is the last update we will ever see.
post #48876 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by holyindian View Post

I have a THT subwoofer, its a huge 36x36x24 subwoofer. They are like the Danley DTS-10 subs, the THT is considered a monster in the world of Folded horned loaded Subwoofers. The sub does not have an inbuilt amp, but is powered by an external amp the Dayton SA1000.
[...]
I do get a feeling I am doing something wrong, audyssey has tuned many a THT subs, i am not sure where i am messing up.

Did you enable Dynamic EQ?

Is there enough space for the sub to "breathe"? Did you try moving it to another location (probably not that easy)? Do you have measuring equipment in order to measure the in-room response?

Is the SA1000 the same as the HPSA1000-R? That amp is down by 15dB at 10Hz: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post13714349
Is this what you were looking for?
post #48877 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I understand that Audyssey needed to pivot, but fixing a problem that didn't exist seems like an odd way to go. DEQ was a very "sound" addition to their reference product.

Jeff

The thing I find odd is that Audyssey say their research (and that of many others) shows that sounds emanating from behind the listener are less well perceived than sounds coming from the front. Fair enough, we all agree with that. But then why fix DSX so that it actually reduces the SPL of the sounds coming from behind? That makes no sense to me - they should be increasing it if anything (as does DEQ to compensate for lower overall volume). But DEQ is different - DEQ is dedicated to giving us the effect of reference (which by definition is achieved at 0dB) when we are listening at <0dB. The aim is still to recreate reference, but at lower volumes than the mixer was using. DSX has no such aims at all and the way it works is actually contrary to what Audyssey say is the problem in the first place. And that is without referring to their marketing claims which talk about greater 'accuracy' when what is actually offered is less accuracy!

I am a great fan of Audyssey and XT32 in particular and, as you know, am about to give them hundreds more of my dollars for their Pro kit, so I am by no means a dissatisfied Audyssey user - but DSX does not work the way they imply it works, it does not correct the problem they say it should correct and it does offer a form of distortion of the original sound. But as I have said a million times since this whole issue flared up - if people like the result, that is great! Then they should use it. It's P R E F E R E N C E!
post #48878 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo S View Post

Bonjour Keith,



The next time I go into Louvres, you can be sure I'll stop by la Joconde and I'll put by brown tinted glasses on - as and I'm sorry -, I prefer this color for sun glasses... and I'll post a report here as to how people looked at me...

Bon WE Ã* Toi,

Hugo

LOL!! Bon weekend Ã* toi aussi, Hugo. C'est très 'intéressant' ici ces derniers jours, n'est-ce-pas?
post #48879 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Then Audyssey is best buy! On another note, IMHO even if there was no MultEQ, DynEQ alone would be worth a million by itself! I know, I know what you'd like to say, I'm just theoretical!

On a third note, I always wonder how such highly reputed makers like Yami and Pio with their less capable Room Correction systems are able to survive on the market? No need to reply!

Well, on a last note for today, ever since I got engaged with Audyssey, my amazement has always been focused on DeQ! IMHO, while EQing by MultEQ is a rather simple and obvious approach, the things DynEQ does to our listening environment is a kinda magic, especially when it does it in real-time, i.e. putting program materials on the proper loudness curve at a given Master Volume setting in regards of being loud or soft. Kudos to Audyssey!

I agree with all you say there, Feri, other than perhaps you should have added "for a lot of us". Personally, although I use DEQ and appreciate its 'magic', because I tend to listen at very high levels almost all the time, DEQ does less for me than it would for many people. At my usual listening levels I can switch DEQ in and out and it makes very little difference. Of course, if I lived in an apartment, or had neighbours, or sleeping children etc, then DEQ would probably be my No 1 reason to love Audyssey too!

AAMOI, my No 1 reason is what XT32 does for my bass. In my difficult small room, taming the bass was always the biggest problem for me, and the EQ1 and now XT32 does such a superb job there that I still marvel at it every time I watch a movie.
post #48880 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

It may not in that case. I would submit that most home theaters have multiple seats. Furthermore, it is also the case that even the sound quality in the lone MLP can be significantly improved with the proper coordination of multiple subs.

Absolutely. This is what I have found. I am only interested in the MLP for the vast majority of the time and every optimisation I make is intended to improve the sound at that MLP. But... adding the second sub improved the bass one more step on the road to sonic bliss even at the MLP. It is true that the bass is now much better over the whole room than it was before, but that is of no real concern to me. But for anyone who uses just one seat most of the time and who might therefore consider a second sub will bring few benefits, it ain't necessarily so....
post #48881 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Doesn't it makes you wonder why no other room correction system has such a feature?

It does now Want to share your thoughts on it with us, Sanjay?
post #48882 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

What Keith perceives as a "negative impact on the surrounds" for many people makes the surrounds disappear and become less distracting, allowing them to be more "immersed" or "enveloped" by the movie.

That's not quite right, Batpig, and it may well be my choice of words there was poor. For me at least, what DSX does is the opposite of what you say above - when DSX is engaged I find the sound LESS immersive and enveloping. The level reduction that DSX causes (and whatever that other thing is that appears to change the content of the surrounds too) spoils the overall immersive sound field. My surrounds aren't 'distracting' in any way (unless the mixer has deliberately chosen to draw attention to them) and I would venture to say that, post MultEQ XT32, they are giving more or less exactly what the mixer intended that I should hear. That is the problem with DSX for me - it 'messes with' my surrounds, taking me away from 'reference' and thus spoils my enjoyment. It's purely personal but I noticed it more or less immediately after I first started using DSX heights (even though at that time loving the excitement and impact that DSX added up front). I mentioned it to Roger and asked him if there was a 'scientific' explanation for what I was hearing and he kindly explained to me how DSX works and this was my 'bingo' moment when what I was hearing suddenly had a proper explanation and rationale for it.

But I can readily accept that some people love what DSX does. I have no argument at all there and people are free to use their systems in any way they choose to bring them the maximum pleasure. My only 'gripe' is that DSX's advertising stresses greater accuracy when there is less accuracy and this deceived me. It made me expect something that DSX could not deliver. If they had explained how DSX works in the way Roger explained it to me, I would probably never even have tried it.

I am mostly responsible for this current discussion I think as it was some remarks from me, pages back, that caused it to kick off and I am saddened that it seems to be pitting otherwise friendly AVS users one against another. There is no need for it to do so IMO as everyone here has a valid opinion and POV, even if others seriously disagree with it.
post #48883 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by holyindian View Post

My apologies, its 75dB not minus.
Yea i read on the manual that after setting up the auto-cal not to touch the settings on the sub.

OK, cool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by holyindian View Post

I have a THT subwoofer, its a huge 36x36x24 subwoofer. They are like the Danley DTS-10 subs, the THT is considered a monster in the world of Folded horned loaded Subwoofers. The sub does not have an inbuilt amp, but is powered by an external amp the Dayton SA1000.

OK - it doesn't matter where the amp is for the sub - I was just trying to understand it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by holyindian View Post

Now when i turn on the Audyssey auto-calibration, during the very first step at Subwoofer Level Matching, I start the SW Test after which the subwoofer roars for few seconds and then i get a message saying
"Please adjust the level of your active subwoofer unit so that the level indicates approx. 75dB

So far, so good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by holyindian View Post

In this case do i have to turn down the gain knob on my external amp?

Yes. You need to adjust the sub's gain control (which in your case is the separate amp) so that you get a reading of 75dB on screen. If you set the level there, for example, to 85dB, then your AVR will try to trim it down when Audyssey runs. If it needs to trim it down by more than the limits, then that is where the problem arises. If your trim limit is -12dB then once you hit that you have no way of knowing if it was actually trying to set it even lower. At 75dB on the screen there, you should find that the end result is within the AVR trim range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by holyindian View Post

And when i do turn it down to bring down the value to 75dB (which is initially 98d marked in a red box), when i bring down the gain knob on the amp the numbers slowly start falling, and by the time it shows 75dB, the gain knob on the amp is almost 1 on a scale of 10.

That tends to show that you have a very efficient sub or a very powerful amp, or both. But 75dB is 75dB regardless of where the gain knob is positioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by holyindian View Post

Thus making the sound from speakers and subwoofer like a hand held radio after tha auto-calibration.

This is where it is going wrong. 75dB is 75db so I am not sure that the effect you are hearing is attributable to the cause you are suggesting. Once you have the sub set to 75dB then you are good to go wrt to Audyssey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by holyindian View Post

I used to have an Onkyo SR-TX604 amp earlier, which also used audyssey calibration, but with that.. the speakers/subs sounded better than the imax theater.

What is your current equipment line up? Specifically what AVR are you using and what version of Audyssey does it have (apologies if you have already said and I have missed it - this thread has been sort of hyper these last few days discussing matters of philosophy and, sadly, those with genuine problems to solve like you have become submerged in it all).

Once the sub level is set then you run the Audyssey calibration and I am afraid that it seems as if your speakers are so efficient that Audyssey cannot calibrate them down to the required level without hitting the stops on the trims. If this is so then you can simply raise the trims afterwards as Batpig suggested or add some form of attenuation as I suggested. The problem is that you should not be hearing sound "like a transistor radio' no matter what and I cannot understand why you are.
post #48884 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I was summing up what I read in your post.

I had explained my position on DSX, and even allowed that others may like it. Your post, tome that it was, not only explained why you were right, but why I was wrong.

That is not the way to discuss or have a friendly discussion.


Creo que no, senor.

Jeff

Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

well I'm sorry you feel that way but that's a total mischaracterization of my post. No need to be petulant. As you say -- I "even allowed" that you can still NOT like it if all you got out of it is that you feel I think you are "wrong" for not liking DSX, then you aren't even trying to read what I'm saying.

obviously when you accused ME of being the one who has delicate sensibilities you were accidentally looking in the mirror


Guys, jeez, come on.... does it matter? Kiss and make up FFS....
post #48885 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

That could certainly enhance spaciousness for the rear half but I think the main problem here is that there's no format and therefore no content for delivering realistic spaciousness through wide and height channels. Those additional speakers first have to become discrete channels then we can talk about even more speakers and/or channels.

I don't think that will ever happen, do you? Apparently, the vast majority of people have just 5.1. You can see why given that most people use their living room for their HT and WAF and aesthetics and just space considerations make even 7.1 problematic for them. An even tinier number have 9.1 systems and the number with 11.1 must be minuscule, evidenced by the fact that AVR manufacturers haven't even bothered offering 11 channels so far.

I think the future lies somewhere like this:

http://www.cambridgemechatronics.com...logy/audio_DSX
post #48886 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I don't think that will ever happen, do you? Apparently, the vast majority of people have just 5.1. You can see why given that most people use their living room for their HT and WAF and aesthetics and just space considerations make even 7.1 problematic for them. An even tinier number have 9.1 systems and the number with 11.1 must be minuscule, evidenced by the fact that AVR manufacturers haven't even bothered offering 11 channels so far.

I think the future lies somewhere like this:

http://www.cambridgemechatronics.com...logy/audio_DSX

"Dynasonix" would benefit from additional discrete channels too. I think the future of audio is to separate content from presentation. I believe Roger can tell us more about that.
post #48887 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

"Dynasonix" would benefit from additional discrete channels too. I think the future of audio is to separate content from presentation. I believe Roger can tell us more about that.

Oh sure - I'd prefer discrete channels to anything - what can be better than a physical speaker placed in the right place? I just can't see people wanting to festoon their sitting rooms with more and more speakers, that's all. Personally, if I had the space, I'd love to have 11 speakers and 4 subs - or even more speakers if it gave me a better or more involving sound.

But then the guys on AVS are hardly typical. Most people I know are just content to watch a movie using the TV sound, or a soundbar thing. I keep telling them they are missing half the movie, but they come back with the same old reasons: no space, don't want the sitting room to look like a hifi store, the wife won't allow it, no need for all those speakers etc etc etc.

I think few of us are lucky enough to have a separate, dedicated room - especially in Europe where homes and rooms are generally smaller than in the USA. And, TBH, if my system was in my sitting room, I wouldn't want all those speakers I currently have either.
post #48888 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

...the number with 11.1 must be minuscule, evidenced by the fact that AVR manufacturers haven't even bothered offering 11 channels so far....

Just to clarify, the Denon AVR4311/A100 is 11.2 (but requires 2 chs of ext amplification to have all 11 chs going at once).
post #48889 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Guys, jeez, come on.... does it matter? Kiss and make up FFS....

They just don't realize what a negative effect it has on us kids when they bicker.
post #48890 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Just to clarify, the Denon AVR4311/A100 is 11.2 (but requires 2 chs of ext amplification to have all 11 chs going at once).

Good point. But it's one in a field of one isn't it?
post #48891 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

They just don't realize what a negative effect it has on us kids when they bicker.

LOL. Yeah, I'm already in the Social Services thread, seeking help....
post #48892 of 70884
Bonjour Keith,

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

LOL!! Bon weekend Ã* toi aussi, Hugo. C'est très 'intéressant' ici ces derniers jours, n'est-ce-pas?

Passionnant!

Now to be slightly more serious, yesterday after upgrading the FW of my JVC X30, I re watched "Tree of Life", just for the pleasure of eyes and... mind...

But opposed to the first time when it was in French, this time it was in English, and let me say here that the sound of this Blu Ray is magique...

Did I mention DSX (11)? No. Not even in a subliminal way...

Amitiés,

Hugo
post #48893 of 70884
Bonjour Roger,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

...
Mine too, but DSX is nothing like that with the content I happen to enjoy.
...

All this debate around the Front/Rear "misbalance" in DSX (9 W+H or 11) reminds me of the passionate debate around Dipole (THX), Bipole or Monopole speakers for Surrounds (not BS), that took place years ago...

Now can one objectively argue that there is a better acoustic option between these 3? Is there today an identified "winner"? Aren't tripole speakers the clear answer to this question, by offering the choice to the end user to configure his own installation the way HE prefers?

And what do we see here? Choice and user preference...

So as for the use of Dipole, Bipoles, Monopoles, in my (again humble) opinion, the appreciation of DSX processing is the very same expression of a personal audio aesthetical taste or opinion, with the slight difference that to be optimally performed or heard, DSX has to be adequately installed (angled) and performed in its" full 9 (W+H) or 11 configuration.

Finally and to be very clear, even though I appreciate Audyssey products and Chris for his passion de la Belle Ouvrage audio, if DTS Neo X in its' 11 form or whatever Dolby 11 new product, sounded better than DSX, I would clearly switch to that.

But for now - and for me -, the DSX 11 processing that a "simple" Denon 4311 can offer, c'est vraiment BEAU... et dommage que tu sois aussi loin, Roger.

Hugo
post #48894 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by holyindian View Post

My apologies, its 75dB not minus.
Yea i read on the manual that after setting up the auto-cal not to touch the settings on the sub.



I have a THT subwoofer, its a huge 36x36x24 subwoofer. They are like the Danley DTS-10 subs, the THT is considered a monster in the world of Folded horned loaded Subwoofers. The sub does not have an inbuilt amp, but is powered by an external amp the Dayton SA1000.

Now when i turn on the Audyssey auto-calibration, during the very first step at Subwoofer Level Matching, I start the SW Test after which the subwoofer roars for few seconds and then i get a message saying
"Please adjust the level of your active subwoofer unit so that the level indicates approx. 75dB
In this case do i have to turn down the gain knob on my external amp? And when i do turn it down to bring down the value to 75dB (which is initially 98d marked in a red box), when i bring down the gain knob on the amp the numbers slowly start falling, and by the time it shows 75dB, the gain knob on the amp is almost 1 on a scale of 10. Thus making the sound from speakers and subwoofer like a hand held radio after tha auto-calibration.

I used to have an Onkyo SR-TX604 amp earlier, which also used audyssey calibration, but with that.. the speakers/subs sounded better than the imax theater.



Again, as i said, i cannot set the gain on the sub, as there is no knob or control of the amp on the sub. My subwoofer has an external Rack mountable amp the Dayton SA1000.



And here's the picture of the subwoofer.



I am not sure, is it cos the sound coming from the subwoofer is so massive the audyssey reads it as above reference level??

I do get a feeling I am doing something wrong, audyssey has tuned many a THT subs, i am not sure where i am messing up.


You've gotten good advice above, I'll just add a couple of things.

The main thing that the autocalibration of speaker levels is doing is to get every speaker to put out equal epl with equal input, so they acurately reflect what goes on. Your old recever had Audyssey 2EQ, and did not have DynamicEQ or Dynamic Volume. It is these newer technologies that make Audyssey want to not JUST equalize the speakers, but set them to a known otput level for a known input level. That lets Audyssey know where the movie mixing and movie playback "reference level" is (every movie mixing stage uses the same reference level) so that the newer techs wil work right.

that's why it's trying to get your sub into the 75 dB range.

You'll just have to make yourself not worry about where the volume control is. Our hearing and the dB scale are logarythmic (10 times power equals 2 times loudness). Some amps have linear volume controls, so thatthe first 20 or 30 dB of adjustment are all in the first 1/8 to 1/4 of the adjustment range. My guitar amp suffers from this, making it hard to set the level when I need to be quieter.

In the end, though, your sub will be able to fully provide every single decibel called for by the movie or music even with its low volume control setting. Don't worry.

Now, I have to say it is possible yo've gotten used to non-calibrated sound. If your sub was 20 dB above reference at it's old amp setting, it is very likely that your old Onkyo could not bring it any closer than 5 or 10 dB above the level it should be. All AVRs have limits on how far they can trim the speakers and they do not issue warnings when they lack enough plus or minus to get things right. The only way to tell is to look at the trim settings and see if they are maxed out.

Two things. First, I recommend that you calibrate and live with the correct levels for a while and see if, while there's less impact, it's kind of nice not to have midrange sounds swamped out by the loud bass. Note that using Dynamic EQ, if you listen below reference, will make up for a lot of your missing bass, by boosting bass and treble to account for the fact that as things get quieter, humans hear those frequencies lwss well. So with DYnEQ it's possible you'll have all the impact you think you are missing! And it'll be the rignt amount of boost at different frequencies in the bass and adjust itself if you listen at different levels at different times. It's a good thing IMO.

Now, if you find after say 2 weeks that you just plain prefer the bass more boosted, nothing bad will happen if you turn the sub back up. THe usual recommendation is to do it with the sub level trim in the receiver rather than on the amp volume knob so you know how much change you made and can get back to or change your deviation from reference easily.

Finally, as I understand it, some AVRs default to have Audyssey Dynamic volume on at full strength. This will give you wimpy sound at high levles (makes everything audible quite nicely when you listen very quietly, but it's not good for normal listening). Make sure it is OFF when making critical judgments about your system.
post #48895 of 70884
Ca va, Hugo...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo S View Post

Bonjour Keith,

Passionnant!

Vraiment!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo S View Post


Now to be slightly more serious, yesterday after upgrading the FW of my JVC X30, I re watched "Tree of Life", just for the pleasure of eyes and... mind...

But opposed to the first time when it was in French, this time it was in English, and let me say here that the sound of this Blu Ray is magique...

I haven't got around to that movie yet but it is on my list.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo S View Post

Did I mention DSX (11)? No. Not even in a subliminal way...

LOL - I will re-read your post and get between the lines.... no - I think you are right - not even a hint of a suggestion of DSX
post #48896 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

The thing I find odd is that Audyssey say their research (and that of many others) shows that sounds emanating from behind the listener are less well perceived than sounds coming from the front. Fair enough, we all agree with that. But then why fix DSX so that it actually reduces the SPL of the sounds coming from behind? That makes no sense to me - they should be increasing it if anything (as does DEQ to compensate for lower overall volume).

Audyssey hints at the "why" when they refer to "movies and most music" as "front weighted content". I'm not sure what their thinking was here but I assume it's to emphasize that "wall of sound" in the frontal hemisphere... personally, I find it distracting when a sound is too localizable behind me, to my mind it breaks the "illusion" a bit since what I'm looking at is in front of me.... so that's just idle speculation on my part, but it could be that their research shows most people agree that it is more "immersive" the way DSX proposes the speaker layout should be.


Quote:


And that is without referring to their marketing claims which talk about greater 'accuracy' when what is actually offered is less accuracy!

My only 'gripe' is that DSX's advertising stresses greater accuracy

no, it doesn't. Roger pointed out ONE instance of the use of that word, and now you are focused on it, but that is NOT in any way what their marketing for DSX "stresses". Please, go to this page and tell me how many times the word "accurate" or "accuracy" appears: http://www.audyssey.com/audio-technology/audyssey-dsx

what they stress is most saliently "immersion" and "envelopment". Other buzzwords include "three dimensional soundstage", "increase in soundstage width", and a more "lifelike" presentation. All of which I think DSX definitely delivers and many others do too.


Quote:


but DSX does not work the way they imply it works, it does not correct the problem they say it should correct

sure it does. Only if you fixate on the word "accurate" does it not, and that's sort of the whole point.... the "criticism" by many of DSX seems to be a complete strawman, in that you are shoving it into a box it was never meant to be in. The "problem" as I described above is how to increase immersion/envelopment, and DSX does that. You may not like their solution, and that's totally cool. but I dispute the idea that their marketing is "misleading".


Quote:


Guys, jeez, come on.... does it matter? Kiss and make up FFS....

hey, I'm not the one who suddenly started acting all hurt apparently you, Hugo, Roger, etc. are able to freely continue this discussion like friendly adults, so I'll wait for Jeff's ego to de-bruise and hopefully he can join back in if he wants
post #48897 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

well I'm sorry you feel that way but that's a total mischaracterization of my post. No need to be petulant. As you say -- I "even allowed" that you can still NOT like it if all you got out of it is that you feel I think you are "wrong" for not liking DSX, then you aren't even trying to read what I'm saying.

obviously when you accused ME of being the one who has delicate sensibilities you were accidentally looking in the mirror

Whatever.
post #48898 of 70884
see?
post #48899 of 70884
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post


what they stress is most saliently "immersion" and "envelopment". Other buzzwords include "three dimensional soundstage", "increase in soundstage width", and a more "lifelike" presentation. All of which I think DSX definitely delivers and many others do too.

Sounds like you are describing my bipoles all around (except center). As I have said before if want similar affects without the real (or perceived) problems and expense of DSX try bipoles or dipoles.
post #48900 of 70884
With the length of this thread and the vast number of topics in it I wonder if we're due for an Audio Calibration subforum....

I ran Audyssey again last night. I kept the microphone in the back half of the room rather than closer to the TV. It did make a big difference and the sound is much better. I'm still struggling with low center channel volume (dialog very soft as compared to fronts and surrounds). I would really have to increase the overall volume to get dialog to where it can be easily heard. It's still audible but just very soft compared to everything else.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)