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 2031

post #60901 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Because not everyone is willing to admit it involves compression (see batpig's post I was replying to).

Well, maybe that's the rub? IMO, what it does sorta kinda of fits the definition of compression, but the technology doesn't compress everything into a smaller dynamic range. And I'd bet that the people that worked on DEQ and it's competitors would give a big eye roll rolleyes.gif, acknowledge the similarity and then move on. wink.gif

Jeff
post #60902 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post


DEQ, like Dynamic Volume and Dolby Volume, use models of human hearing to inform the algorithm which sounds dominate the perception. If the horn is loud and tends to mask the piano, then the process will adapt based on the piano. When the horn ceases, the process will adapt to the piano. It of course takes a little time to do that, but since these processes are frequency selective, they can do a lot of changing below the radar of the casual listener. Listen carefully and you will hear the adaptation going on.

I'd guess that a LOT of work goes into crafting it so that the "adaptation" is NOT heard. I remember pumping in the early NR schemes ...

Jeff

 

It isn't working all that well (the crafting) if Roger and other 'careful listener' can hear it working, is it?

post #60903 of 70896
Quote:
IMO of course, and fully accepting that not everyone has domestic circumstances that make this possible.

Nor, do most people have steel eardrums that would be useful to listen at such loud volumes.
Do you really listen to "live" & 'reference" levels in your home. That's pretty loud dude.
post #60904 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougReim View Post

Quote:
IMO of course, and fully accepting that not everyone has domestic circumstances that make this possible.

Nor, do most people have steel eardrums that would be useful to listen at such loud volumes.
Do you really listen to "live" & 'reference" levels in your home. That's pretty loud dude.

 

Yes. Well not at Reference, as I said. -5dB. That is loud and I have the subjective feeling that it seems to be about as loud as when I go to a movie theatre (which is of course 0dB). In a good, properly calibrated system, in a treated room, with plenty of headroom and little distortion, these levels do not 'sound loud'. So 'steel eardrums' aren't needed, fortunately :)  What do you do when you go to a movie theatre?  You can't ask them to 'turn it down' so perhaps you use musician's earplugs? (Serious question, I am not having a go at you).  EDIT: ITYF that quite a few people in this thread enjoy systems that play cleanly at or close to Reference levels - I don't think I am all that unusual ;)

 

If my system sounded 'excruciatingly loud' (that's where I think I’d need 'steel eardrums) at these levels, I'd be fairly certain something was wrong. Assuming that none of the equipment was faulty, or being driven beyond its designed parameters, the first suspect would be the room and untamed reflections.

 

For music, where there are no standards, I try to listen at what is my recollection of similar music played live. I mostly listen to Jazz and Blues, Soul etc. I have plenty of experience at listening to this sort of music live and I just try to approximate that at home. It is subjective - I have never taken an SPL meter to a gig :)  To me, the point of 'hi-fidelity' is to recreate the original sound, or at least get as close to that goal as possible (As Quad used to say ; "the closest approach to the original sound"). I realise others have different objectives of course, but that is mine.


Edited by kbarnes701 - 3/20/13 at 6:15am
post #60905 of 70896
Yes, I was kidding with the "steel eardrums" remark smile.gif .
I've seen many people post about listening at reference and I was curious. My system in my room is just too loud for me at reference. That being said I probably shouldn't make any comments about volume as my hearing is not the best due to many loud concerts when I was a kid.........way, way long ago.
post #60906 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

I've never understood full the reason for that. What is it about the home vs the theater that makes reference too loud? Room size? More reflected sound? Being closer to the speakers?

Well last night I adjusted my AVR (it has a setting to increase the volume per input to maintain equa-volume when changing inputs) back to "0" for the volume "boost" when watching Cable and watched a few shows at -1db and noticed an improvement (to my ears) though it was still louder then before. My better half complained to 'turn it down' but I pretended to.

I know for most True HD movies from my Popcorn Hour I'll be able to listen at 0db but DTSMA movies will be something to test (when the better half is out of the house)!.
post #60907 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by urwi View Post

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.

Spot on, actually. I don't know who you are but all 5 of your posts so far have been, Cheers.
Quote:
That's not how Roger characterises it in his post above. He says that the process adapts to the loud or soft instrument. Who's right?

Not a chance, not "instrument" but rather that instrument's frequency range. DynamicEQ is simply an algorithm that does two things, applies your good 'ole loudness curve, that is the EQ part of the "tier" or whatever. The "Dynamic" part is that it accentuates this loudness curve the further from reference you get as you turn down the volume knob on your AVR. listening at -5dB, there is little additional boost that dynEq is applying to the low end, but at -20 it is bringing up the low end much much more to still attempt to keep those freq's audible.

Think of it using a pipe organ, which is easy to get REALLY low notes on, down to 16hz to be exact, but lets just say the pipe organ is playing a 20hz fundamental, and a 1000hz fundamental at the same time with your AVR's volume at say -20dB. With DynamicEQ on, the spl difference between the two is going to be less (Call it compression if you like, but I think we need to look for a more useful term) as DynEQ is boosting the 20hz tone/note quite a bit to still make sure you are able to hear it, but needs not boost the 100hz tone at all. Now lets crank the volume to say -5 on the AVR. Measured you will see the 1000hz note has (hopefully) increased exactly 15dB's according to the 15dB increase on the volume knob. Now you will see the 20hz tone has NOT increased the full 15dB as now that you are closer to "reference" that note doesn't need that much correction as it did at 20hz to make it still audible. I will pull these numbers as merely hypothetical, but it should maybe explain it a little better at each AVR volume level and corresponding SPL level:


WITH Dynamic EQ on
AVR: 0.0 -5 -20
20hz: 85dB 81dB 75dB
1khz : 85dB 80dB 65dB

WIth Dynmic EQ off
AVR: 0.0 -5 -20
20hz: 85dB 80dB 65dB
1khz : 85dB 80dB 65dB

This is all assuming the organist was playing the same fundamental notes at the same level to start with btw.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tboe77 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

I've never understood full the reason for that. What is it about the home vs the theater that makes reference too loud? Room size? More reflected sound? Being closer to the speakers?

Subjectively, I always find my own system to be much louder than the movie theater long before I get to 0 on the master volume control. I'm wondering if many movie theaters actually play at reference levels. I suspect many of them don't.

Anyone ever take an SPL meter to the movies with them? biggrin.gif

Yep, I did, and no, most theaters don't play at reference to begin with as most people still, even in a commercial environment find it too loud.
post #60908 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by urwi View Post

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.

Spot on, actually. I don't know who you are but all 5 of your posts so far have been, Cheers.
Quote:
That's not how Roger characterises it in his post above. He says that the process adapts to the loud or soft instrument. Who's right?

Not a chance, not "instrument" but rather that instrument's frequency range. 

 

Well that isn't what Roger says. He says: "If the horn is loud and tends to mask the piano, then the process will adapt based on the piano. When the horn ceases, the process will adapt to the piano."  I suspect he meant 'horn' when he said the first 'piano' BICBW.  I dont argue with Roger, ever ;)

 

 

Quote:
DynamicEQ is simply an algorithm that does two things, applies your good 'ole loudness curve, that is the EQ part of the "tier" or whatever. The "Dynamic" part is that it accentuates this loudness curve the further from reference you get as you turn down the volume knob on your AVR. listening at -5dB, there is little additional boost that dynEq is applying to the low end, but at -20 it is bringing up the low end much much more to still attempt to keep those freq's audible.

 

According to those who claim to know, it does more than that. (THX LP does what you describe). Apparently, DEQ 'listens ahead' and when it spots loud and soft passages 'coming up' it adjusts for them on the fly, regardless of the setting of the MV. IOW, it adjusts for the input level as well as for the output level. The fans say that this is the 'dynamic' part. IDK if this is true or not but it is being touted as the huge difference between DEQ and the other forms of EQ which purport to do the same thing.

 

I actually don't really care what it does or how it works because, for me, it doesn't actually do very much at all because of the levels I habitually listen at. But it's interesting to read all the different theories, for that is all they are.

post #60909 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougReim View Post

Yes, I was kidding with the "steel eardrums" remark smile.gif .
I've seen many people post about listening at reference and I was curious. My system in my room is just too loud for me at reference. That being said I probably shouldn't make any comments about volume as my hearing is not the best due to many loud concerts when I was a kid.........way, way long ago.

 

I permanently damaged my hearing at a King Crimson gig many years ago, before there were controls on the SPLs allowed. The 2 hour gig gave me tinnitus in my right ear and I have had it ever since of course. Fortunately, I am usually able to 'tune it out' so it doesn't bother me too much, except when I am very tired and then I seem to find it difficult to tune it out.

post #60910 of 70896
Quote:
I permanently damaged my hearing at a King Crimson gig many years ago

I can't remember the last time I heard some one mention King Crimson. Unfortunately you must be damn near as old as i am....eek.gif
post #60911 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

It isn't working all that well (the crafting) if Roger and other 'careful listener' can hear it working, is it?
(sticks fingers in ears) la la la la la
post #60912 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Apparently, DEQ 'listens ahead' and when it spots loud and soft passages 'coming up' it adjusts for them on the fly, regardless of the setting of the MV.
So the AVR always plays the sound at a delay when DEQ is on? How else can it read ahead?
Fraction of a second delay is still a delay, and I'd have never thought an AVR would do such a thing.(unless you manually set an audio delay which i think can be set upto 300ms on the Denon)
post #60913 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougReim View Post

I can't remember the last time I heard some one mention King Crimson. Unfortunately you must be damn near as old as i am....eek.gif

Some of their catalog recently became available in high resolution multichannel audio.

Jeff
post #60914 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by enthusiast8 View Post

So the AVR always plays the sound at a delay when DEQ is on? How else can it read ahead?
Fraction of a second delay is still a delay, and I'd have never thought an AVR would do such a thing.(unless you manually set an audio delay which i think can be set upto 300ms on the Denon)

With any kind of digital precessing, there are delays introduced. This applies to the audio and video streams.

Jeff
post #60915 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by urwi View Post

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.


Spot on, actually. I don't know who you are but all 5 of your posts so far have been, Cheers.
Quote:
That's not how Roger characterises it in his post above. He says that the process adapts to the loud or soft instrument. Who's right?


Not a chance, not "instrument" but rather that instrument's frequency range. 

Well that isn't what Roger says. He says: "If the horn is loud and tends to mask the piano, then the process will adapt based on the piano. When the horn ceases, the process will adapt to the piano."  I suspect he meant 'horn' when he said the first 'piano' BICBW.  I dont argue with Roger, ever wink.gif

Quote:
DynamicEQ is simply an algorithm that does two things, applies your good 'ole loudness curve, that is the EQ part of the "tier" or whatever. The "Dynamic" part is that it accentuates this loudness curve the further from reference you get as you turn down the volume knob on your AVR. listening at -5dB, there is little additional boost that dynEq is applying to the low end, but at -20 it is bringing up the low end much much more to still attempt to keep those freq's audible.

According to those who claim to know, it does more than that. (THX LP does what you describe). Apparently, DEQ 'listens ahead' and when it spots loud and soft passages 'coming up' it adjusts for them on the fly, regardless of the setting of the MV. IOW, it adjusts for the input level as well as for the output level. The fans say that this is the 'dynamic' part. IDK if this is true or not but it is being touted as the huge difference between DEQ and the other forms of EQ which purport to do the same thing.

I actually don't really care what it does or how it works because, for me, it doesn't actually do very much at all because of the levels I habitually listen at. But it's interesting to read all the different theories, for that is all they are.

I think that somehow parts of "Dynamic Volume's" characteristics have been tossed in to the DynEQ theories, in Roger's case as well perhaps. Because overall compression of the signal is EXACTLY what dynamic volume does, but by no means is that what Dynamic EQ does. I really need to dump some more graphs on here to really show EXACTLY what dynamicEQ does. Urwi did that, with plain loopback levels and no one really took it for what it was worth, but I can perhaps get some on here that shows exactly what dynamicEQ does engaged on my system. Simply put, if dynamicEQ was bringing the levels of the piano and the horn closer together to make them each stand out a little better, that is the definition of dynamic COMPRESSION, the antithesis of true dynamics...Maybe if this is true, Audyssey should have called "CompressionEQ"
post #60916 of 70896
I also agree that there seems to be some conflation of Dynamic Volume and EQ here. For example, I always though it was Dynamic Volume that is doing the "listening ahead" and monitoring the fluctuations in loudness a few milliseconds in advance to predict when to turn down/up the volume. Dynamic EQ just needs to know the input signal level at any point in time, I don't see why it needs to "listen ahead".
post #60917 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Because not everyone is willing to admit it involves compression (see batpig's post I was replying to).

Well, maybe that's the rub? IMO, what it does sorta kinda of fits the definition of compression, but the technology doesn't compress everything into a smaller dynamic range. And I'd bet that the people that worked on DEQ and it's competitors would give a big eye roll rolleyes.gif, acknowledge the similarity and then move on. wink.gif

Jeff

Well, again as with the prior discussion I think there's a large semantics issue here. The root problem seems to be the negative connotation with the word "compression". If you don't view it as inherently negative it's not so scary -- and I think your description of it as compensating for the "expansion" of our hearing at lower volumes to make things *sound* normal again is a very elegant way of expressing it.

As you note (and beastaudio mentions above) it's not a "compressor" in the way that something like Dynamic Volume works to squash dynamic range, but there is some compression at certain frequencies to maintain the perception of proper tonal balance. I don't think it's a bad thing as it makes my system sound better smile.gif
post #60918 of 70896
Seems to me all this concern about DEQ "distorting" (for want of a better word) the artist's/musician's original presentation, particularly if using examples of a horn or piano, is overblown. We all know that DEQ really affects only the lower bass and, to a much lesser degree, I thought, the high upper frequencies. Most of what you hear from horns (continuing with that example) IMO isn't in those frequency ranges, nor is most of what you normally hear from a piano. I'm not saying ALL but most. It seems like many of the recent posts on this subject seem to be indicating that everything they hear from a recording using DEQ will be greatly affected when (again IMO) the greatest portion of what you hear just WON'T be. The greatest difference I hear using DEQ is only in the lowest bass region mostly well below 100Hz (and my SVS PB13 Ultra reproduces well below 20Hz) and I listen to most music and movies at around -15 to -12 on the MV. When I have friends over for dinner and just want background music turning my AVR to around -30 to -35 makes a noticeable difference again only in the lower bass and not in all the instruments. Granted I'm not a musician nor a sound engineer but DEQ just doesn't affect enough frequencies to distort the original recording, at least IMO. (Though I will admit listening to just music in true multichannel I often don't appreciate the boost to my side surrounds that DEQ does. But that is another subject entirely.)

Anyway bottom line is IMO we're getting too far out there with this concern over DEQ distorting or compressing sound. Frankly that sort of thing is more a function of Dynamic Volume which we all know is different than DEQ.

Just my two cents.

Edit to add: Looks like two others above me are saying some of the same things and beat me to it. wink.gif
post #60919 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

It isn't working all that well (the crafting) if Roger and other 'careful listener' can hear it working, is it?
(sticks fingers in ears) la la la la la

 

hehehe - now you definitely can't hear it working :)

post #60920 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougReim View Post

Quote:
I permanently damaged my hearing at a King Crimson gig many years ago

I can't remember the last time I heard some one mention King Crimson. Unfortunately you must be damn near as old as i am....eek.gif

 

:)  Their albums still sell well so I am told... the thing about being old is that it is a damn sight better than the alternative ;)

post #60921 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DougReim View Post

I can't remember the last time I heard some one mention King Crimson. Unfortunately you must be damn near as old as i am....eek.gif

Some of their catalog recently became available in high resolution multichannel audio.

Jeff

 

To play it at realistic levels, you need a system that can sustain 120dB for 2 hours. Well, that's what they apparently did when I saw then :(

post #60922 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

 
I think that somehow parts of "Dynamic Volume's" characteristics have been tossed in to the DynEQ theories, in Roger's case as well perhaps. Because overall compression of the signal is EXACTLY what dynamic volume does, but by no means is that what Dynamic EQ does. I really need to dump some more graphs on here to really show EXACTLY what dynamicEQ does. Urwi did that, with plain loopback levels and no one really took it for what it was worth, but I can perhaps get some on here that shows exactly what dynamicEQ does engaged on my system. Simply put, if dynamicEQ was bringing the levels of the piano and the horn closer together to make them each stand out a little better, that is the definition of dynamic COMPRESSION, the antithesis of true dynamics...Maybe if this is true, Audyssey should have called "CompressionEQ"

 

I agree with you. You need to ask Feri - he's the one who knows how it works. And IIRC he says it does not compress. 

post #60923 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Well, again as with the prior discussion I think there's a large semantics issue here. The root problem seems to be the negative connotation with the word "compression". If you don't view it as inherently negative it's not so scary -- and I think your description of it as compensating for the "expansion" of our hearing at lower volumes to make things *sound* normal again is a very elegant way of expressing it.

As you note (and beastaudio mentions above) it's not a "compressor" in the way that something like Dynamic Volume works to squash dynamic range, but there is some compression at certain frequencies to maintain the perception of proper tonal balance. I don't think it's a bad thing as it makes my system sound better smile.gif

That is exactly what I - and I'd bet Feri - take issue with: Making it "compression" carries a particular connotation and seems a bit agenda-driven.

Jeff
post #60924 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

smile.gif  Their albums still sell well so I am told... the thing about being old is that it is a damn sight better than the alternative wink.gif

I think it is "getting" old that beats the alternative. "Being" old isn't better than the "alternative."

Jeff
post #60925 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

I also agree that there seems to be some conflation of Dynamic Volume and EQ here. For example, I always though it was Dynamic Volume that is doing the "listening ahead" and monitoring the fluctuations in loudness a few milliseconds in advance to predict when to turn down/up the volume. Dynamic EQ just needs to know the input signal level at any point in time, I don't see why it needs to "listen ahead".

 

 

Yes, there may be some conflation. Nonetheless, if it doesn't 'know' the input level has changed and all it does is adjust the EQ based on the position of the MV (the output level), and vary the EQ amount, of course, by reference to how far the MV is moved from 0dB (the 'dynamic' bit in my feeble understanding of it), then all it does is what THX LP does. I mentioned that in a poorly worded post a day or so ago and sparked off this entire heated debate (unfortunately). It HAS to do more than what I just said here, or it is the same as THX LP. And those who say they 'know' say it isn't like THX LP at all. Harrison gave the most clear explanation IMO of how it is alleged to work. He said this (and Feri agreed with him (my bolding):

 

"As THX explains, you turn down the volume and they dial in a fixed EQ curve that provides tier one (I like that characterization btw). That would be all one needs if every track had just one amplitude from beginning to end. With Audyssey, you get that first tier correction and on top of that you get more or less EQ adjustment in accordance with the equal loudness contours as the amplitude of the track content rises and falls. For instance, a bass drum hit that is at the reference level would be corrected via tier one at your listening level (let's say -20db) correctly by THX or Audyssey. Another softer hit of the same bass drum that is 10 or 20db below reference level would not have extra correction in the THX implementation but would have more EQ in accordance with the equal loudness contour at that -10 or -20db level in the Audyssey implementation. I.e., with the THX implementation you hear the bass less as the amplitude of the track drops".

 

Kal chimed in with:

 

"My recollection about Audyssey's DEQ is that they were the first, and maybe still the only company that adjusts the EQ every millisecond or two as the level of the content varies. That surely deserves to be called "dynamic.""

 

"And that is what makes me leery of it.  If the quieter notes are more EQ-ed to sound as if they are less quiet while the louder notes are less EQ-ed, that is a musical distortion, imho.  Linking the correction to overall level setting makes more sense even if there is the capability to do "dynamic" EQ."


Edited by kbarnes701 - 3/20/13 at 2:59pm
post #60926 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

To play it at realistic levels, you need a system that can sustain 120dB for 2 hours. Well, that's what they apparently did when I saw then frown.gif

I suppose that could happen if you pass out inside a bass bin. tongue.gif
post #60927 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

To play it at realistic levels, you need a system that can sustain 120dB for 2 hours. Well, that's what they apparently did when I saw then frown.gif

And you play movies at - 5 db from reference with no RLO? eek.gif

Good thing you never listened to Mr. Bungle.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bungle
post #60928 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

I also agree that there seems to be some conflation of Dynamic Volume and EQ here. For example, I always though it was Dynamic Volume that is doing the "listening ahead" and monitoring the fluctuations in loudness a few milliseconds in advance to predict when to turn down/up the volume. Dynamic EQ just needs to know the input signal level at any point in time, I don't see why it needs to "listen ahead".

Exactly my point and seems others are starting to see the light.

On another note, the compression thing SHOULD carry a bad connotation as speaker compression is VEWY VEWY bad, signal compression is obviously not desirable, from the main source, and often times you can get either of both of these types of REAL compression in play. Let us also not forget that many don't have those capable systems that can and often do distort/compress on their own, regardless of DynamicEQ or anything else for that matter. I know my first theater setup years ago would do some seriously bad things when I wanted to lay the coal to it, and I vowed to not stop working on my HT until I got to a point where my threshold was within the range of my speakers, for the entire spectrum, and I am here now. Even if I want to venture into +5dB territory for movies OR music, which I rarely do and if so it is for a few seconds, I know my system can handle it...

Anyways, for this discussion we are discussing an intentional compression of sorts, or something I like to call "Signal Shaping!!" There, see? I fixed it!
post #60929 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

smile.gif  Their albums still sell well so I am told... the thing about being old is that it is a damn sight better than the alternative wink.gif

I think it is "getting" old that beats the alternative. "Being" old isn't better than the "alternative."

Jeff

 

I'd say being alive was "better' than being dead, wouldn’t you?  :)  I take your point though (ITYP) :)

post #60930 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

To play it at realistic levels, you need a system that can sustain 120dB for 2 hours. Well, that's what they apparently did when I saw then frown.gif

And you play movies at - 5 db from reference with no RLO? eek.gif
 

 

 

LOL. But that is a mere 100dB (110dB for bass) Stuart... KC achieved the threshold of pain... it was a long time ago - way before anyone even thought of regulating the SPLs bands could produce. In those days, if you didn’t come out of a gig with your ears ringing, you asked for your money back :)

 

Quote:
Good thing you never listened to Mr. Bungle.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bungle

 

D'you know, I had never even heard of Mr Bungle until 2 minutes ago...

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)