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 1675

post #50221 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Nathan, there is a thread here on AVS where Dr Olive announced the "announcement" of the study and presentation at AES. His screen name is Tonmeister2008.

'Ere ya go - http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1192916

Wonder if xt versus xt 32 versus xt 32pro makes a difference. Martin Logan has good things to say on ARC as well as Audysey xt 32
post #50222 of 70896
I know how much better my room/system is with XT 32 and then the "polish" that is added with Pro; I have no doubt that it could have made a difference. I say "could" because I don't know that it would have given the test.

Anthem has some very smart people and I'm sure ARC does a fine job.

Jeff
post #50223 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

'Ere ya go -

Bert, is that you? 'Ow's the chim-chiminy sweep bus these days?
post #50224 of 70896
Watched the Adele Blu-ray of her concert at the Royal Albert. When she spoke, I could understand every other word. When she sang, every word. What is up with those Brits, they sing like Americans?

Jeff
post #50225 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Watched the Adele Blu-ray of her concert at the Royal Albert. When she spoke, I could understand every other word. When she sang, every word. What is up with those Brits, they sing like Americans?

Jeff

But the sound quality was breathtaking, wasn't it? It has become one of my go-to disks to demonstrate Hi-res music.
post #50226 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Watched the Adele Blu-ray of her concert at the Royal Albert. When she spoke, I could understand every other word. When she sang, every word. What is up with those Brits, they sing like Americans?

Jeff

I blame the Liverpudlian hooligans who overtook US airwaves in the 60s. Although Mick and Keef mighta contributed a bit.

All of which means we really have Little Richard to blame!
post #50227 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelscott73 View Post

Sorry, I should maybe explain something. I am somewhat of a purist. I still insist on using the 7.1 outs on my BR player directly into a preamp. I have never wanted to use HDMI for audio. I've never wanted to run the HDMI through a switch or receiver. I know, it shouldn't matter...
Anyway, I'm finally moving to a receiver in order to try 9 channels...so I still have it in the back of my mind the quality won't be there.

If you are using 7.1 analog outs, then your questions are essentially irrelevant as you cannot apply ANY digital processing to the multichannel analog path. In this configuration, the BR player is the "pre/pro" and the AVR is effectively converted into an amplifier only. All bass management, delay, etc. must be set in the player.

Also, most "purists" would eschew DSX on principle

But to answer the original question..... the difference between the HD audio track and the "legacy" track is that the HD track is lossless, whereas the legacy track is lossy. So it's analogous to the difference between an MP3 and a CD or FLAC. Let's say you listen to your music in "pure direct" mode... if you listen to the MP3, it's lossy.... if you listen to the CD original, it's lossless. If you decide to then apply some "post processing" like multich stereo or Dolby PLII Music, you don't "lose" the original -- the MP3 version is still lossy, and the CD original is still lossless -- but you do layer stuff on top. Likewise, if you engage post processing on an HD audio track (whether PLIIx to matrix back surrounds, or DSX to create high/wide channels, or DTS Neo:X, etc) you don't "lose" the quality of the original, you just layer sprinkles on the cupcake
post #50228 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan_h View Post

For reference, the curves appear to indicate that their number names correspond to:

1: Harmon's beta product: In-room amplitude of loudspeaker spatially-averaged at the primary listening seat, as confirmed by the study's author in his blog

2: Harmon's beta product: In-room amplitude of loudspeaker spatially- averaged over 6 listening seats, again confirmed by the author

3: Anthem

4: no EQ, as indicated in the PPT

5: Audyssey (the response curve matches their target curve more closely than any other product measured)

6: Lyngdorf DPA-1

(I'm skeptical of 3 and 6 and suspect they might be flipped.)

It turns out Lyngdorf was 3, Anthem was 5, Audyssey was 6. Anthem was so close to no correction that if they had used a speaker that had scored higher in preference tests, then ARC would have moved up to 4, swapping places with no correction.

At this point the comparison is a few years old and almost all those room correction systems (ARC, Audyssey, even Harman's own ARCOS) have made significant improvements since then. So that comparison is not very useful for deciding between those systems today. (Is Lyngdorf still in business?)

However, the main take-away is still worth noting. With all the talk about phase manipulation, speaker re-mapping, time-domain correction, etc., the comparison found that preference came down to basically two factors, and both were related to frequency response: smoothness and target curve. The smoother the response, the more it was preferred. And a quick look at slide #25 of Olive's presentation shows why the tilted target curves were preferred: listeners perceived them as being flat.

Keep in mind that this comparison (like all Harman testing) is about listener preference, not "accuracy" (however you define that).
post #50229 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Watched the Adele Blu-ray of her concert at the Royal Albert. When she spoke, I could understand every other word. When she sang, every word. What is up with those Brits, they sing like Americans?

Jeff

Jeff, here's my take on the issue as a non-native outsider. English is always spoken with a local accent, but when sung its universal. See how Mick Jagger is doing it: (speaking and singing at the same time!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLU8C9WeIH8
post #50230 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

It turns out Lyngdorf was 3, Anthem was 5, Audyssey was 6.

While reading between the lines, if Audyssey was 6 that means Audyssey is the biggest competitor Harman would like to defeat!!!
post #50231 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Jeff, here's my take on the issue as a non-native outsider. English is always spoken with a local accent, but when sung its universal. See how Mick Jagger is doing it: (speaking and singing at the same time!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLU8C9WeIH8

Not sure I'd call that speaking, more like imitating a southern US accent. And I certainly wouldn't call what Jagger does "singing."
post #50232 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

But the sound quality was breathtaking, wasn't it? It has become one of my go-to disks to demonstrate Hi-res music.

irt Adele Blu-ray
If you say so, I'll give it another try, but I was very disappointed on first spin. k d lang Live in London BR is my reference live concert film.
post #50233 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

irt Adele Blu-ray
If you say so, I'll give it another try, but I was very disappointed on first spin. k d lang Live in London BR is my reference live concert film.

Perhaps I am lacking your "Golden Ears", SOM. I have KD Lang Live in London BR as well, and it is also quite remarkable. Maybe because I like Adele's music better, it is clouding my objectivity...
post #50234 of 70896
Got KD in London, too, but haven't popped it in yet. I will say that KD Lang in concert is a real treat. One does have to be ... "multi-cultural" .. to go to one of her concerts, but my wife and I are and that was part of the ... entertainment.

Jeff
post #50235 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Might the mis-calibration also extend to the measured response being incorrect due to non-linearities in the XLR pad inserted into the mic line?

That would be a poorly designed pad.
post #50236 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Got KD in London, too, but haven't popped it in yet. I will say that KD Lang in concert is a real treat. One does have to be ... "multi-cultural" .. to go to one of her concerts, but my wife and I are and that was part of the ... entertainment.

Jeff

speaking of "live concert" recordings - I also recommend "Leonard Cohen Live in London" & "Springsteen Live in Dublin" for well recorded concert venue discs that make good use of all of your speakers.
post #50237 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggsantafe View Post


speaking of "live concert" recordings - I also recommend "Leonard Cohen Live in London" & "Springsteen Live in Dublin" for well recorded concert venue discs that make good use of all of your speakers.

All depends on your musical tastes, but Nine Inch Nails Beside You In Time is also reference quality.
post #50238 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

That would be a poorly designed pad.

Well, it was a question, so thanks for the info.

Jeff
post #50239 of 70896
The Pretenders - Live in London. All things considered as good as I've heard if a great working band is your thing. The mix is superb, the sound quality keeps up and no overdubs.
post #50240 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

If you are using 7.1 analog outs, then your questions are essentially irrelevant as you cannot apply ANY digital processing to the multichannel analog path. In this configuration, the BR player is the "pre/pro" and the AVR is effectively converted into an amplifier only. All bass management, delay, etc. must be set in the player.

Also, most "purists" would eschew DSX on principle

But to answer the original question..... the difference between the HD audio track and the "legacy" track is that the HD track is lossless, whereas the legacy track is lossy. So it's analogous to the difference between an MP3 and a CD or FLAC. Let's say you listen to your music in "pure direct" mode... if you listen to the MP3, it's lossy.... if you listen to the CD original, it's lossless. If you decide to then apply some "post processing" like multich stereo or Dolby PLII Music, you don't "lose" the original -- the MP3 version is still lossy, and the CD original is still lossless -- but you do layer stuff on top. Likewise, if you engage post processing on an HD audio track (whether PLIIx to matrix back surrounds, or DSX to create high/wide channels, or DTS Neo:X, etc) you don't "lose" the quality of the original, you just layer sprinkles on the cupcake

As I explain in my post I am moving to a receiver in order to move to 9.1. I no longer intend to use my BR to decode lossless audio. I have separates now. You hit the nail on the head....I am eschewing the whole processing thing.
But the only thing I can do is try it and see how I like it. I think the heights will work nice with my set up.
post #50241 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Perhaps I am lacking your "Golden Ears", SOM. I have KD Lang Live in London BR as well, and it is also quite remarkable. Maybe because I like Adele's music better, it is clouding my objectivity...

Thank you, I actually recived a "Golden Ears" award at a recent local HiFi meet. This little OT discussion is certainly about preference! I'm really glad you mentioned the Adele disc as I went back and listened to it, this time comparing 5.1 to Stereo. The Stereo mix is much clearer and the concert is now quite enjoyable to me. Great voice! In contrast, the DTS surround mix has far too much reverb for my taste. It does give more of the sense of "being there" but it's too diffuse for me and detracts from my ability to appreciate her voice and the instrumentation.

With kd's disc, I never thought to switch to stereo as her voice and all the instruments are all clear and well-balanced. I rarely hear a live string section so well used and so well mixed into Pop songs.
post #50242 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

It turns out Lyngdorf was 3, Anthem was 5, Audyssey was 6. Anthem was so close to no correction that if they had used a speaker that had scored higher in preference tests, then ARC would have moved up to 4, swapping places with no correction.

At this point the comparison is a few years old and almost all those room correction systems (ARC, Audyssey, even Harman's own ARCOS) have made significant improvements since then. So that comparison is not very useful for deciding between those systems today. (Is Lyngdorf still in business?)

However, the main take-away is still worth noting. With all the talk about phase manipulation, speaker re-mapping, time-domain correction, etc., the comparison found that preference came down to basically two factors, and both were related to frequency response: smoothness and target curve. The smoother the response, the more it was preferred. And a quick look at slide #25 of Olive's presentation shows why the tilted target curves were preferred: listeners perceived them as being flat.

Keep in mind that this comparison (like all Harman testing) is about listener preference, not "accuracy" (however you define that).

Thanks for that. I'm knee deep in the referenced thread, and this is a nice summary (and correction to what I surmised).
post #50243 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

With all the talk about phase manipulation, speaker re-mapping, time-domain correction, etc., the comparison found that preference came down to basically two factors, and both were related to frequency response: smoothness and target curve.

Why the reference to phase manipulation, speaker re-mapping, and time-domain correction - the test didn't include those, did it?
post #50244 of 70896
The room correction technologies tested do those. Sanjay is saying that they weren't what won the day ... so to speak.

Jeff
post #50245 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

And I certainly wouldn't call what Jagger does "singing."

Yeah, well I'd bet he is sure always singing a very happy tune whenever he looks at what it's done for his bank account over the years..
post #50246 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

It turns out Lyngdorf was 3, Anthem was 5, Audyssey was 6. Anthem was so close to no correction that if they had used a speaker that had scored higher in preference tests, then ARC would have moved up to 4, swapping places with no correction.

At this point the comparison is a few years old and almost all those room correction systems (ARC, Audyssey, even Harman's own ARCOS) have made significant improvements since then. So that comparison is not very useful for deciding between those systems today. (Is Lyngdorf still in business?)

However, the main take-away is still worth noting. With all the talk about phase manipulation, speaker re-mapping, time-domain correction, etc., the comparison found that preference came down to basically two factors, and both were related to frequency response: smoothness and target curve. The smoother the response, the more it was preferred. And a quick look at slide #25 of Olive's presentation shows why the tilted target curves were preferred: listeners perceived them as being flat.

Keep in mind that this comparison (like all Harman testing) is about listener preference, not "accuracy" (however you define that).

And your comment below is also nailing another problem with that comparison:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

However, I'd still be curious how Audyssey with DEQ would compare to the Harman 2 room correction (which samples multiple listening seats and seems to have a built-in tilt that looks similar to loudness compensation). Would Harman 2 still end up being prefered at comfortable listening levels?
post #50247 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post


But the sound quality was breathtaking, wasn't it? It has become one of my go-to disks to demonstrate Hi-res music.

Thumbs up, Just my words, GOOSEBUMPS all over ?
post #50248 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post


Jeff, here's my take on the issue as a non-native outsider. English is always spoken with a local accent, but when sung its universal. See how Mick Jagger is doing it: (speaking and singing at the same time!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLU8C9WeIH8

Yes it's odd isn't it? Even people with very strong Scottish and Welsh accents lose all trace of the accent when they sing. Some Scots have accents that are impenetrable to me but when they sing the sing in perfect 'English'.
post #50249 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


Yes it's odd isn't it? Even people with very strong Scottish and Welsh accents lose all trace of the accent when they sing. Some Scots have accents that are impenetrable to me but when they sing the sing in perfect 'English'.

Yeah, Audyssey has quite the impressive range of technologies.
post #50250 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yes it's odd isn't it? Even people with very strong Scottish and Welsh accents lose all trace of the accent when they sing. Some Scots have accents that are impenetrable to me but when they sing the sing in perfect 'English'.

It is said that British blues/blues rock was a reflection of the music of American Black blues practitioners. The Brits listened, mixed in their experiences and sent it back to America. But the vocals remained unaffected by their native accents.

Jeff
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)