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 1886

post #56551 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamonsasa View Post

Okay thanks for the info guys, one more personal question, in my AVR (onkyo nr818) there is a LIP SYNC Feature that is turned on by default , should i turn it off or leave it on? do u guys have that feature on in your AVRs?

I have it in my Denon AVR. I leave it on all the time. If the audio is out of sync, the AVR has an adjustable delay feature that puts the audio and and the picture back together!
post #56552 of 70896
Okay, dave and pbarach, do u guys have Auddysey set to MOVIE or MUSIC for your sources?
post #56553 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Here is Chris' reply to my email about reducing the reflections: "MultEQ analyzes the effects of reflections by looking at the time domain signature of speakers. It creates a filter solution that reduces the effect of reflections. There is no way to go after individual reflections because those are due to physical room effects. However, if we can find out what negative effects these reflections have in the listening area then we can create filters to reduce these effects knowing what is about to happen to the sound as it leaves the speaker. "

I have followed up with a question about the GRAPHS showing a reduction in the AMPLITUDE of the first reflection, the answer to which seems to be more on point, but haven't received a reply yet. Otherwise, I am left to parse between "reducing" and "reducing the effects."

Jeff
I suspect the only real effect that Audyssey has is the one we're already aware of, i.e. fixing FR anomalies resulting from constructive and destructive interference between the direct and reflected wave fronts.

It would be interesting to see his response to questions about why no one else can replicate the results of the Audyssey graphs showing reduction of the early reflection spikes.


Max
post #56554 of 70896
Oh, and on the topic of room treatments, I had a friend who added treatment to the ceiling and I definitely liked the after vs before results. He added diffusers to the ceiling, BUT it was months between hearing the difference, and with audio memory and all, this would fall in the realm of anecdotal preference, AND he has 12' ceilings, vs my (and many others') 8' ceilings, so I'm not sure how beneficial those same type of diffusers would be in my room (they're the kind that look like a large square populated by different height building blocks).

I looked up the prices of them online and will probably try some at some point, but haven't gotten to it yet ( they cost $100-$200 per 2'x2' square).


Max
post #56555 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamonsasa View Post

Okay, dave and pbarach, do u guys have Auddysey set to MOVIE or MUSIC for your sources?

 

I don't mean to be unfriendly (or maybe I do....), but you have already asked this question.  And your lipsync questions are better asked in your AVR manufacturers thread, not in the Audyssey thread.  And, if you are going to ask questions here, could you please spell Audyssey correctly?

post #56556 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamonsasa View Post

Okay, dave and pbarach, do u guys have Auddysey set to MOVIE or MUSIC for your sources?

I have a small room with carpet and lots of other sound-absorbing furnishings. I use Audyssey FLAT (the Denon equivalent of Onkyo/Integra's MUSIC) for everything. Rolling off the highs with the regular Audyssey (Reference) curve made things sound muffled. The difference is very obvious: Last month I found myself having to turn on the subtitles for every TV show before discovering that Audyssey FLAT had switched itself somehow to the regular Audyssey curve. Changing back to FLAT solved the problem.
post #56557 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

It would be interesting to see his response to questions about why no one else can replicate the results of the Audyssey graphs showing reduction of the early reflection spikes.
Are those individual early reflection spikes in the Audyssey graphs? Weren't those Audyssey graphs impulse responses whereas the graphs posted in this thread were ETCs (where you can see individual reflections)?

If you can find frequency response graphs that show a post-Audyssey improvement in the low frequencies, then that measurement data should also show improvements when displayed as impulse response graphs. OK, not as pretty as the ones on the Audyssey website, but some improvement.
post #56558 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamonsasa View Post

okay and what LISTENING MODE u guys use on your receiver when listening to music? all channel stereo?

I use direct on almost all inputs and sources.  NEVER use all channel stereo.  But that's just me and you have to find out what floats YOUR boat.

post #56559 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

I use direct on almost all inputs and sources.  NEVER use all channel stereo.  But that's just me and you have to find out what floats YOUR boat.

I never use DIRECT or PURE DIRECT because on my Denon system, you get no Audyssey plus bass that's doubled from the speakers and the sub. I use STEREO on all 2-channel sources, except for some streamed movies that are actually Dolby Prologic matrixed.
post #56560 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

I use direct on almost all inputs and sources.  NEVER use all channel stereo.  But that's just me and you have to find out what floats YOUR boat.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbarach View Post


I never use DIRECT or PURE DIRECT because on my Denon system, you get no Audyssey plus bass that's doubled from the speakers and the sub. I use STEREO on all 2-channel sources, except for some streamed movies that are actually Dolby Prologic matrixed.

Right.  I intentionally said "direct" and not "DIRECT" or "PURE DIRECT" because I meant no additional channel synthesis or the imposition of attempts to simulate artificial acoustics.  I simply play or decode the channels in the source.  But you are right to point this out as, of course, I do use bass management and room EQ.    

post #56561 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

But you are right to point this out as, of course, I do use bass management and room EQ.    

I know you do; I read your articles in Stereophile.
post #56562 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Here is Chris' reply to my email about reducing the reflections: "MultEQ analyzes the effects of reflections by looking at the time domain signature of speakers. It creates a filter solution that reduces the effect of reflections. There is no way to go after individual reflections because those are due to physical room effects. However, if we can find out what negative effects these reflections have in the listening area then we can create filters to reduce these effects knowing what is about to happen to the sound as it leaves the speaker. "
I have followed up with a question about the GRAPHS showing a reduction in the AMPLITUDE of the first reflection, the answer to which seems to be more on point, but haven't received a reply yet. Otherwise, I am left to parse between "reducing" and "reducing the effects."
Jeff

Maybe it's too simple to see easily. To me, Chris means that if the reflections results in a 4 dB peak at 2 KHz, Audyssey reduces 2 Khz by 4 dB so you end up flat in the listening area. There's really nothing more fancy Audyssey can do. It cannot send out a simulteneous antireflection signal because (a) it can't aim the antireflection signal at the reflection point so the antireflection signal would combins with the signal going everywhere and (b) the antireflection signal would combine with the direct radiation into the listening area to yield a jacked up frequency response in the direct path from speaker to ear. Similarly it cannot send out a delayed signal via the idrect path to eliminate the reflection for the same reasons. It can't aim the delayed signal only into the listening area and perhaps more importantly, the speaker can only emit one sound at a time, so it would emit original signal plus slightly delayed inverted signal yeilding an awful lot of cancellation and a sound probably of less fidelity than a cheap 40 year old transistor radio.
post #56563 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamonsasa View Post

Okay, dave and pbarach, do u guys have Auddysey set to MOVIE or MUSIC for your sources?

Like pbarach I pretty much use "Audyssey Flat" (Denon) for everything.
post #56564 of 70896
Drank the coffee of the audio purists and thought Audyssey was no good for two channel listening. With multeq enabled, the bass is smoother and I love the sound. Running Focal 836 v's. With that said, will the more advanced versions of Audyssey give me a more balanced sound? I share my two channel set up with my one and four year old, ALL of their toys and we are trying to keep our house in show room condition, as we are attempting to move, so treating my room right now is not feasible.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
post #56565 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclif77 View Post

Drank the coffee of the audio purists and thought Audyssey was no good for two channel listening. With multeq enabled, the bass is smoother and I love the sound. Running Focal 836 v's. With that said, will the more advanced versions of Audyssey give me a more balanced sound? I share my two channel set up with my one and four year old, ALL of their toys and we are trying to keep our house in show room condition, as we are attempting to move, so treating my room right now is not feasible.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
Not sure I'd use "more balanced" but I get your question and the answer is yes.

You share your two channel system with your ONE and FOUR year olds? eek.gif
post #56566 of 70896
Ok, well I'm glad you know what I'm getting at. Would it be worth the upgrade?

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
post #56567 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclif77 View Post

Ok, well I'm glad you know what I'm getting at. Would it be worth the upgrade?
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
Pls refresh me on what gear you have now. Sub or subs?
post #56568 of 70896
I have an Integra dtr 50.2 that uses multi eq. My sub just died but am saving for a Submersive HP. Speakers are Focal 836 v's.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
post #56569 of 70896
There was a big jump in main channel filter resolution from MultEQ XT to MultEQ XT 32 as well as a sub channel leveling screen added. And it handles two sub channels much better, but even those of us with one sub would probably tell you that the upgrade was very much worthwhile.
post #56570 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Feri got an infraction???  WTF for?
He did not use an anagram for one of those words.

Yeah, Feri (posts since deleted) moved a bit beyond "gentlemanly conduct" and snapped.... and then apparently took Markus down with him tongue.gif
post #56571 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclif77 View Post

Ok, well I'm glad you know what I'm getting at. Would it be worth the upgrade?

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

In general, each step up the Audyssey MultEQ "ladder" will yield smoother bass as well as increased transparency, clarity, and overall system cohesion. This is due to the increase in filter resolution, allowing the algorithm to more effectively combat acoustic issues in your room. If you can afford it, jump all the way to XT32 if possible; it's the state of the art and essentially the full realization of what Audyssey was trying to do with MultEQ.
post #56572 of 70896
Thank you for the explanation. This sounds like it's going to be expensive. :banghead:

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
post #56573 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclif77 View Post

Thank you for the explanation. This sounds like it's going to be expensive. :banghead:
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

Not really - people have been scarfing up the Denon 4311ci for the last few months, mostly to get XT it seems. It's been moving at sale prices for a long time, but there was sort of a second run recently. Look into it if it's still happening.
post #56574 of 70896
Ok, thanks. I'll have a hell of a time explaining this to the Misses.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
post #56575 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclif77 View Post

Ok, thanks. I'll have a hell of a time explaining this to the Misses.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

Bookmark this biggrin.gif

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1388717/denon-4311ci-ee-for-1329-99
post #56576 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjames View Post

Not really - people have been scarfing up the Denon 4311ci for the last few months, mostly to get XT it seems. It's been moving at sale prices for a long time, but there was sort of a second run recently. Look into it if it's still happening.

Did you mean to say "to get XT32", or am I getting my Denon models messed up?

Brian
post #56577 of 70896
It has XT32.
post #56578 of 70896
Yeah, typed too fast smile.gif
post #56579 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdlynch View Post

I need some advice on a potential change in my Pre-Pro.
Here is my situation:
I am close to making a purchase decision on new subs for my HT system. I will either be getting a pair of submersives, a pair of HSU ULS15's, or a pair of DIY subs. That decision on its own is enough to wear me out and is desrving of its own separate discussion.
However, along with the subs I realize the need to purchase some type of bass EQ device. Since my pre-pro is an old Lexicon DC-1 an upgrade has been causing me a bit of an itch lately. I love the logic 7 and what it does for movies. My first choice would be to get an MC-12 with room EQ which would get me a newer processor with the Lexicon sound i prefer, and, an EQ which I am looking to buy anyway.
Here is the question:
Is the latest version of Audysssey EQ good enough that I should consider a pre/pro that integrates the audyssey as opposed to sticking with Lexicon? I really wish they still offered the stand-alone unit that would allow me to stay with Lexicon and utilize the Audyssey room correction. I am concerned I might regret anything besides the Lexicon L7 processing that I have been acclaimated to for nearly 15 years.
I would like to take the money I would pay for a sub EQ and apply that to the purchase of a used pre/pro with a built-in EQ. Does anyone have any experience with Lexicon to be able to offer any comments or opinions? Any pre/pro's out there that you might suggest I consider?

You could try to find a used Audyssey standalone on Audiogon or wait for the new DL2 unit with Dirac Live that will be around the same price as what the Audyssey sound equalizer originally sold for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

It would be interesting to see his response to questions about why no one else can replicate the results of the Audyssey graphs showing reduction of the early reflection spikes.
Max

That's the million dollar question;)
post #56580 of 70896
Thanks Steve- I thought my question was buried too deep in the thread for a response! This DL2 sounds interesting; any idea when it is to be released?
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)