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 2029

post #60841 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Maybe it's just trying to keep those sounds from becoming inaudible?

Remember Roger's post from last year:

IMHO, Roger's post should be copied and pasted into the DEQ section of the FAQ by Keith when amending with the description of the two-tier motor of DEQ.! smile.gif Keith? cool.gif
post #60842 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Of course, there is also the issue of DEQ raising the level of some parts of the source more than others, depending on its loudness and I have never fully understood how DEQ 'knows' that a softer passage is not supposed to be softer.
Maybe it's just trying to keep those sounds from becoming inaudible?

Remember Roger's post from last year:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Let's use the example of a train recording (I guess it could also be a marching band!). The top line in each of these diagrams is the train's spectrum as it passes close by. The lower line is the final loudness as the train travels far away. The overall SPL reduces 40 dB during the train recording.





Blue = Playback at Ref volume. When the train is close, we hear all frequencies equally loud. When it is far, the bass is naturally weaker (just like real life), but it is audible.








Red = MV at -30. When the train is close, the bass is weak. When it is far, the bass is much weaker, and becomes inaudible below 60 Hz.








Green = Fixed Loudness Compensation applied. When the train is close, we hear all frequencies equally loud. When it is far, the bass is weak below 100 Hz, and inaudible below 30 Hz.








Grey = Dynamic EQ applied. When the train is close, we hear all frequencies equally loud. When it is far, the bass is weaker, but it is audible. The arrows show where the lower curve had additional bass boost applied in response to the quiet program level. The amount of compensation needed has changed as the train went from loud to soft. Fixed compensation cannot do that.








Blue/Gray = Before /After with Dynamic EQ
Yup, I recall Roger's post and explanations, and they make sense, which is why I use DEQ when watching movies below Reference.

As stated in my other post though, when listening to music, I rarely find CDs that are recorded so that listening at THX Reference '0' on a calibrated system does NOT blow out the windows (Water Lily's Blumlein recordings with no compression being one of the rare exceptions). As such, my preference is to set the MV at a realistic level to what I hear in live performances. I don't particularly want the lowest frequencies boosted because the musician is playing a soft passage and the MV is at -12db. If the musician was playing a soft passage 30-40' in front of me, the extreme frequencies ARE going to be heard less than others.

In Roger's example of a passing train or marching band played softer than the audio engineer intended (Reference volume) though, I completely concur with his reasoning.



Max
post #60843 of 70911
Don't tell Igor, but that sure looks like "compression" eek.gifeek.gifbiggrin.gif

(Pandora's box open)





post #60844 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

bp, i don't think we were discussing equal loudness contours in general this time, but the unique two-tier implementations of Audyssey which if not understood by someone there will be no graphs in the world that would explain it to him.

that seems to be a pretty arbitrary and self-serving distinction, and a pretty pessimistic view of humanity and our ability to learn. Why would a visual representation not be helpful in demonstrating a specific concept that someone doesn't understand? How is that different than someone not understanding the concept of equal loudness contours in general, and then showing them a graph that demonstrates what is happening? I simply can't understand why you are trying to force this weird distinction on this narrow topic.

 

Care to hazard a guess?  wink.gif

post #60845 of 70911
Who can truly unwrap what is going on in the inscrutable mind of Feri? I takes my hat! tongue.gif
post #60846 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

that seems to be a pretty arbitrary and self-serving distinction, and a pretty pessimistic view of humanity and our ability to learn. Why would a visual representation not be helpful in demonstrating a specific concept that someone doesn't understand? How is that different than someone not understanding the concept of equal loudness contours in general, and then showing them a graph that demonstrates what is happening? I simply can't understand why you are trying to force this weird distinction on this narrow topic.

With all due respect bp (+ a million more), may we move on? smile.gif

 

Oh I hope not. It's just getting interesting now...

post #60847 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

When a live pianist plays pianissimo in real life, I'm going to hear the lows and highs a little less than the middle notes/frequencies. I don't particularly want DEQ to dynamically boost those frequencies on the fly to 'restore their prominence'as this would be a distortion of what it would sound like when a live pianist plays softly.
 

 

This is the part that nobody has ever explained satisfactorily. How is DEQ supposed to know which parts are deliberately played more softly by the musician?  I can see that maybe it is possible, but never seen an explanation of it, even from the most ardent DEQ enthusiasts. 

post #60848 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Who can truly unwrap what is going on in the inscrutable mind of Feri? I takes my hat! tongue.gif

Feri's mind is very simple: hoping consensus! tongue.gifwink.gifwink.gif
post #60849 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

When a live pianist plays pianissimo in real life, I'm going to hear the lows and highs a little less than the middle notes/frequencies. I don't particularly want DEQ to dynamically boost those frequencies on the fly to 'restore their prominence'as this would be a distortion of what it would sound like when a live pianist plays softly.

 


This is the part that nobody has ever explained satisfactorily. How is DEQ supposed to know which parts are deliberately played more softly by the musician?  I can see that maybe it is possible, but never seen an explanation of it, even from the most ardent DEQ enthusiasts. 
Precisely, and this is why Audyssey tries to cover the bases by providing the RLO feature along with their varying recommended RLO levels based on music type (eg. -5db for some types of music, -15db for others etc.) essentially saying, "it might be better to reduce or eliminate the effects of DEQ when listening to music, as typical but varying music recording levels (and dynamic compression/normalization) mean you'll usually always be playing below Reference where DEQ is active".


Max
post #60850 of 70911
Ok - don't flame me - I've been reading this thread for weeks and have read almost every thread (though I've been sick the past 6 days) and what IS "reference level" and how do you know what it is? Does each film director set their own reference level for a movie or is it simply listening to the movie at "-0" on your AVR?
post #60851 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wryker View Post

Ok - don't flame me - I've been reading this thread for weeks and have read almost every thread (though I've been sick the past 6 days) and what IS "reference level" and how do you know what it is? Does each film director set their own reference level for a movie or is it simply listening to the movie at "-0" on your AVR?

 

This is not intended to be a flame, but any time you have a question, simply enter it into your browser search.  For example, the search for "What is reference level" produced many hits, including this appropriate one from the Audyssey site:

 

https://audyssey.zendesk.com/entries/73283-Dynamic-EQ-and-Reference-Level

post #60852 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

Yes, it IS possible in some rare cases, for DEQ to cause less capable subs to bottom out where they didn't/wouldn't without DEQ. The normalization boost can occasionally make that happen with subs approaching their limits in the lowest frequencies, but knowing this, proper setup can eliminate that problem.

I have been struggling with this idea. I can only assume that we are discussing a setup where attempting to play at or near reference level with DEQ disengaged would also bottom the sub driver, and running the system at some negative xx dB would be absolutely required. I suppose that DEQ could be turned on while running at -xx, boosting lower frequencies to a higher level than the system can handle. That's the only time I can see this being an issue with that particular aspect of DEQ.
post #60853 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

This is not intended to be a flame, but any time you have a question, simply enter it into your browser search.  For example, the search for "What is reference level" produced many hits, including this appropriate one from the Audyssey site:

https://audyssey.zendesk.com/entries/73283-Dynamic-EQ-and-Reference-Level
From what I've read the past few weeks there's been many a-discussion regarding Audyssey's leveling and the f-3 etc etc so I wanted to pose my question here to see if everyone holds the same definition of "reference level". Thanks!

ps - if listening at "0db" on the AVR is reference I'll have a hard time ever watching it at that level since with my new AVR and speakers I have a hard time getting higher than -5db since it is very very loud (and I'm one who likes it loud)!
post #60854 of 70911
I am pretty sure that, for my ears anyway, what a musician's intent was when playing a specific passage does not change how overall volume changes affect my perception of the tonal balance. I'd assume Audyssey assumes that every dynamic change in every movie or piece of music is quite intentional. But it's not trying to make a piano played pianissimo sound like it was played forte. It's trying to make the piano played pianissimo then played back 10 dB below that sound, from a spectral balance perspective, like it would sound if I had my volume turned up so it was actually pianissimo.

Few and far between are the music releases that bear playback at movie reference level. I think it goes against (at least old timers') views of how recording works to put out a music recording that might never touch the top 6 to 10 dB of available dynamic range. It's normal to set the loudest thing at the loudest encodable level (or dang close) whether you're going to digital or to 2 inch tape.

For me (and only for me, obviously) because I tend to listen quietly (I've more than once had sales people tell me it was a good idea to "also audition" a pair of speakers quietly, when I was at my normal levels) I like what DEQ does for me. But because I hate bloated bass, I do the equivalent of RLO (older Denon) with MORE offset than is likely to be necessary in any reasonable playback. Then I get some pleasing re-establishment of the foundation of the music, and avoid bloat. In other words, my system is calibrated to undercorrect rather than overcorrect. For me the best of both worlds, within reason.

I've yet to hear a BD concert recording that seems to adhere to either movie reference or what I'd typically expect of a pure music recording. The way I'm set up I can't easily change the "virtual RLO" for the channel that I play HDMI (and thus BD) through, and I can't bear what DEQ does to, say, Return to Forever (or as the announcer sez at the end REturn to FORever) but I do have my Harmony setup so I can easily turn off DEQ, and that's what I do.

FWIW, there's a disconnect if you think in terms of the players playing louder and softer because, IMO, with real acoustic and many electric instruments, the timbre changes that result from playing harder likely swamp the timbre changes from being louder, per se. More appropros to think of sitting 10 feet from the stage for an acoustic performance then moving to 80 feet from the stage (at least for an outdoor event.) You'll get a different spectral balance in the two locations. If a recording is supposed to put you 10 feet from the stage and your volume level is at the 80 feet from the stage point (ie 9 dB below whatever "reference" is), DEQ would (especially if it knew the actual "reference" level for the recording) put you right back to the 10 feet away spectral balance.

And it is literally impossible within any particular channel to turn up (or change the EQ of) the quiet piano while leaving the loud trumpet alone, if you're DEQ. In any given channel, the mix of stuff that is there is just the mix of stuff that is there, and at any given microsecond, the soundwave being played back through tat channel is only at one location, regardless of how many instruments are represented by the wave. Luckily for DEQ, we hear on a relatively slow, RMS basis so it can look at the totality of the sound moment by moment and make corrections versus the levels that would be present at the (assumed/RLO determined) "reference" level.
post #60855 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wryker View Post

From what I've read the past few weeks there's been many a-discussion regarding Audyssey's leveling and the f-3 etc etc so I wanted to pose my question here to see if everyone holds the same definition of "reference level". Thanks!

You bet there is consensus here on the definition of "Reference Level". cool.gif The least to say, eh Guys?! smile.gif
Quote:
ps - if listening at "0db" on the AVR is reference I'll have a hard time ever watching it at that level since with my new AVR and speakers I have a hard time getting higher than -5db since it is very very loud (and I'm one who likes it loud)!

In my case I even have a hard time to go over -15 dB, Ok sometimes -10dB, but never could succsed through an entire film in an apartment/ living room environment. But that doesn't mean you don't need to calibrate your system to reference anyhow. wink.gif
Edited by mogorf - 3/19/13 at 1:13pm
post #60856 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Feri's mind is very simple: hoping consensus! tongue.gifwink.gifwink.gif

And Plan B?
post #60857 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

This is the part that nobody has ever explained satisfactorily. How is DEQ supposed to know which parts are deliberately played more softly by the musician?  I can see that maybe it is possible, but never seen an explanation of it, even from the most ardent DEQ enthusiasts. 

Dynamic EQ doesn't need "to know which parts are deliberately played more softly by the musician". It is simply monitoring the overall input level and modifies the applied loudness correction curve accordingly.
post #60858 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

And Plan B?

Is there a need for a Plan B? wink.gif
post #60859 of 70911
Is urwi Chris K in disguise? Or maybe (gasp!) Markus?

We'd love to know more about your background smile.gif It's unusual for a poster to suddenly appear speaking with such authority and certainty.
post #60860 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

I am pretty sure that, for my ears anyway, what a musician's intent was when playing a specific passage does not change how overall volume changes affect my perception of the tonal balance....
... Luckily for DEQ, we hear on a relatively slow, RMS basis so it can look at the totality of the sound moment by moment and make corrections versus the levels that would be present at the (assumed/RLO determined) "reference" level.
Nice post.
I don't use DEQ for any serious listening of any MC music source (BluRay, SACD, DVDA) as DEQ simply boosts surrounds too much, even with RLO.

IMO DEQ works perfectly for film, but then again I'm not so fussy about film soundtracks.

IIRC FilmMixer liked RLO=5 for film to tame the surround boost-and he certainly knew exactly what they were supposed to sound like.
post #60861 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post


Nice post.
I don't use DEQ for any serious listening of any MC music source (BluRay, SACD, DVDA) as DEQ simply boosts surrounds too much, even with RLO.

IMO DEQ works perfectly for film, but then again I'm not so fussy about film soundtracks.

IIRC FilmMixer liked RLO=5 for film to tame the surround boost-and he certainly knew exactly what they were supposed to sound like.

But what happens for movies re-mastered for Blu-Ray?  From what I gather small tweaks are made for a lower listening level and smaller environment so now DynEQ isn't really needed for that either, or only in small doses.  Originally I was a big proponent of DEQ but over the last few months have found I'd rather just turn it off, bump the sub a couple db and now it seems good for all content rather than fiddling with RLO.

post #60862 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

that sure looks like "compression"
Has to be, at least at those frequencies that need to be boosted in order to keep those sounds from falling into inaudibility.
post #60863 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

IMHO, Roger's post should be copied and pasted into the DEQ section of the FAQ by Keith when amending with the description of the two-tier motor of DEQ.
As long as you include a disclaimer in the FAQ that the post is Roger explaining why dynamically adjustable loudness compensation curves can be adventageous compared to a static set of curves, but the post is NOT an explanation of how Audyssey-branded DEQ works (since the inner workings are a proprietary secret).
post #60864 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

I am pretty sure that, for my ears anyway, what a musician's intent was when playing a specific passage does not change how overall volume changes affect my perception of the tonal balance....
... Luckily for DEQ, we hear on a relatively slow, RMS basis so it can look at the totality of the sound moment by moment and make corrections versus the levels that would be present at the (assumed/RLO determined) "reference" level.
Nice post.
I don't use DEQ for any serious listening of any MC music source (BluRay, SACD, DVDA) as DEQ simply boosts surrounds too much, even with RLO.

IMO DEQ works perfectly for film, but then again I'm not so fussy about film soundtracks.

IIRC FilmMixer liked RLO=5 for film to tame the surround boost-and he certainly knew exactly what they were supposed to sound like.
FilmMixer used an RLO of 5, but he also said that he usually sets the MV at -5db as that sounds closer to the Reference level he hears at the studio, 0db on his calibrated home setup to him, sounding too loud.

Doesn't that mean the net effect is that he has DEQ turned off at his preferred MV of -5db?


Max
post #60865 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Has to be, at least at those frequencies that need to be boosted in order to keep those sounds from falling into inaudibility.

Compression is needed to compensate for the "expansion" caused by our non-linear hearing. So the net effect is zero. smile.gif
post #60866 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Of course, there is also the issue of DEQ raising the level of some parts of the source more than others, depending on its loudness and I have never fully understood how DEQ 'knows' that a softer passage is not supposed to be softer.
Maybe it's just trying to keep those sounds from becoming inaudible?

Remember Roger's post from last year:
 

 

Ah yes - well remembered, Sanjay. A masterly post indeed. 

post #60867 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Maybe it's just trying to keep those sounds from becoming inaudible?

Remember Roger's post from last year:

IMHO, Roger's post should be copied and pasted into the DEQ section of the FAQ by Keith when amending with the description of the two-tier motor of DEQ.! smile.gif Keith? cool.gif

Too technical for the FAQ - the explanation that is there already is enough IMO - so long as people have the basic understanding of what it does, I don't think they need to know how it works (and indeed AFAIK nobody really knows how it works anyway as it is proprietary information). All they really need to know is a) leave it turned on for movies and b) leave it turned off for music.

post #60868 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Don't tell Igor, but that sure looks like "compression" eek.gifeek.gifbiggrin.gif

(Pandora's box open)
 

 

I think it IS a form of compression isn’t it?  if it works the way Audyssey says it works, then it has to be compressing as well AFAICS. If it isn’t compressing, then it isn't working as Audyssey says. I can't see how both possibilities can be mutually entertained.  I would normally hate any form of compression of the dynamic range but in this particular implementation it seems fairly benign (for movies). TBH I am fortunate enough to be able to listen more often than not at fairly high SPLs so DEQ won't be having a huge impact for me anyway.

post #60869 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Too technical for the FAQ - the explanation that is there already is enough IMO - so long as people have the basic understanding of what it does, I don't think they need to know how it works (and indeed AFAIK nobody really knows how it works anyway as it is proprietary information). All they really need to know is a) leave it turned on for movies and b) leave it turned off for music.

I see,...And batpig was talking about graphs for those who wish to learn! tongue.gif
post #60870 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wryker View Post

Ok - don't flame me - I've been reading this thread for weeks and have read almost every thread (though I've been sick the past 6 days) and what IS "reference level" and how do you know what it is? Does each film director set their own reference level for a movie or is it simply listening to the movie at "-0" on your AVR?

 

Here you go:

 

a)3.   I keep reading about Reference Level'. What is it?

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)