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 2059

post #61741 of 70885
Just for clarification I did change the mic on my 4311 with the same model mic from another working denon (not a 4311) and got exact same results

So if anything was at fault - was very unlikely to be the mic
post #61742 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
[QUOTE name="Q

@Q&A - XT32 focuses more of its processing power on correction to the lower (below Schroeder) frequencies. This represented a change from previous versions of MultEQ (eg XT) where the processing was applied equally across the spectrum. This led some people to believe that Audyssey could do more harm than good in the upper frequency range (and may be germane to your original question here). However, XT32 applies a 'lighter touch' to the upper frequencies and concentrates on the lower frequencies where correction is far more necessary and important.

Don't be persuaded by Feri's 'entire frequency range' position as this is not correct when discussing XT32.

To be fair to Feri I don't think it's accurate to say it's "not correct". XT32, like all versions of MultEQ, does operate on the entire frequency range. The evidence of course strongly suggests that it isn't doing nearly as much to the high frequencies, but it still DOES do stuff up there.
post #61743 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
[QUOTE name="Q

@Q&A - XT32 focuses more of its processing power on correction to the lower (below Schroeder) frequencies. This represented a change from previous versions of MultEQ (eg XT) where the processing was applied equally across the spectrum. This led some people to believe that Audyssey could do more harm than good in the upper frequency range (and may be germane to your original question here). However, XT32 applies a 'lighter touch' to the upper frequencies and concentrates on the lower frequencies where correction is far more necessary and important.

Don't be persuaded by Feri's 'entire frequency range' position as this is not correct when discussing XT32.

To be fair to Feri I don't think it's accurate to say it's "not correct". XT32, like all versions of MultEQ, does operate on the entire frequency range. The evidence of course strongly suggests that it isn't doing nearly as much to the high frequencies, but it still DOES do stuff up there.

 

Yes, fair point. But in the context of the question posed I maintain his position is incorrect. And some people of course believe that Audyssey versions other than XT32 actually do more harm than good 'up there' ;)  Certainly when I had XT, the major benefits came when I separately EQ'd the bass and when I switched to XT32 the major benefit was heard in the upper frequencies (the bass already taken care of by the add-on AS-EQ1). This is why I suggested the Anti-Mode might be a good potential solution for Q&A.  Personally, I'd just go with XT32 but if he is considering a lesser version of MultEQ, he may be happy to try the A-M.

post #61744 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by markabuckley View Post

Just for clarification I did change the mic on my 4311 with the same model mic from another working denon (not a 4311) and got exact same results

So if anything was at fault - was very unlikely to be the mic

 

Fair enough. Have you ruled out the other potential causes of harsh treble, as discussed in that FAQ answer?

post #61745 of 70885
I thought I would check in regarding high frequency harshness & XT. I had an Onkyo 709 and no matter how I did the 8pt calibration, it was just too bright for my liking. Well it finally had the infamous Onkyo HDMI failure, so I bought a Denon that has XT, and the difference is quite amazing. The Denon is just smoother and sounds better than the Onkyo, from the bass all the way to the glass breaking. I am a bit OCD, so the last time I did my Onkyo calibration, I wrote down the measurements at each mic location, as well as the order in which I placed the mics. The measurements were taken from non movable points like walls and floors, so when I replicated the calibration with the Denon, both in terms of placement and order, it was the exact same procedure +/- 1/4".

I fully expected the two receivers to sound identical given that nothing else changed except for them, and they both offer XT, but the difference is fairly large. The "up front - harsh" sound of the Onkyo has been replaced with a "laid back - smooth" sound by the Denon. I asked Chris about this on FB, but he had no real answer.


EDIT: Trims were all +/- .05db and the Denon has 1/10th of a foot units where the Onkyo had only 6" units. That being said, the distances were also very close. The x-over remained unchanged for both receivers, 90hz all around.
post #61746 of 70885
I wonder if we'll ever get to the bottom of it with some of these "harsh highs" situations. I highly doubt it was some global Onkyo vs. Denon difference.
post #61747 of 70885
Yea, I don't pretend to have an answer. I should have also noted that all other settings are identical too. Audyssey curve was "Movie" in Onkyo and is "Audyssey" in Denon, DEQ ON @ 0db offset and DV OFF. All Small, ect....
post #61748 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Has anyone ever done any measurements of Audyssey's alleged benefits in the time domain?  Not arguing - wondering.

Wonder no more Keith, I think you are just a few clicks away from seeing your own system's performance in the time domain (I presume you have made some measurements in REW with Audyssey on/off and saved those files as .mdat).

Here's an animated gif image made up of two waterfall graphs with Audyssey on/off. Disclaimer: this is by no means a precise and valuable measurement, it has been taken with my Audyssey mic, the sole purpose is to roughly illustrate how Audyssey is supposed to perform in the time domain, taken in my living room at MLP as a single point measurement with my Denon 2310 which only has plain MultEQ.

Red: Audyssey off, Green: Audyssey on


(Click on image to see a larger version)

Whaddaya think Keith?
post #61749 of 70885
Is there really a noticeable difference if you use a tripod vs microphone stand for Audyssey. Yes I know someone will say use REW and you will see. But having said that I am sure there is a difference on paper but can you actually with your own ears be able to tell the difference?
post #61750 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by asere View Post

Is there really a noticeable difference if you use a tripod vs microphone stand for Audyssey. Yes I know someone will say use REW and you will see. But having said that I am sure there is a difference on paper but can you actually with your own ears be able to tell the difference?

Some can, some can not! Some swear they can even hear the difference in a controlled A/B blind test. smile.gif Some say (like me) there is no need to sweat on the issue too much. The recommendation of a trirpod/ mic stand (with boom arm to be precise) is to avoid people using pillows or shoe boxes or other creative methods to ensure the seated ear level for their test mics that can easily have a negative effect on the results by throwing off Audyssey due to reflections off those nearby and relatively large(er) surface "creativities". smile.gif
post #61751 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Some can, some can not! Some swear they can even hear the difference in a controlled A/B blind test. smile.gif Some say (like me) there is no need to sweat on the issue too much. The recommendation of a trirpod/ mic stand (with boom arm to be precise) is to avoid people using pillows or shoe boxes or other creative methods to ensure the seated ear level for their test mics that can easily have a negative effect on the results by throwing off Audyssey due to reflections off those nearby and relatively large(er) surface "creativities". smile.gif

REW can give you peace of mind but in the end if you cannot tell the difference with ears alone I see no point whether its a tripod or mic stand with boom arm.
post #61752 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Feri, I am truly disappointed.  I thought your memory for things Audyssey was much sharper.  Perhaps you don't recall, but back in the days when Markus was an active participant in this thread, there was a lot of discussion regarding the differences between XT and XT32.  Based on pre-out measurements, it was clearly shown that there had been a shift in philosophy with XT32, that is XT32 is focusing more of its processing power on the below-Schroeder frequencies when compared with the previous version.  This has nothing to do with filter resolution.

Here is a recent post from the Audyssey Pro thread that shows the graphs.  I'll be looking forward to your apology.

Hi Jerry, took a look at your graphs on the Pro Installer Kit thread and thanks for the link, I did miss that post of your's. Now please allow me to describe what I see and how I would interpret the case limited to your one graph called: " Left channel pre-out (no smoothing, blue is XT red is XT32)". Firstly I'd like to break the graph into two parts.

1. Mid to high frequencies, and
2. Low frequencies

1. I would not really look into this range too deeply, because as you have mentioned the graph is unsmoothed, some anomalies can easily happen especially due to a logarithmic scale, maybe a 1/6th smoothing would show a more life like picture. smile.gif

2. Now this is the interesting part. Of course the XT32 curve shows more "detail" than the XT curve shows. I would attribute that to the increased filter resolution of the satellite channels being 512x instead of 16x. That's 32 times more and it shows. smile.gif

If we refer to XT in a different way, i.e. knowing it had an unbalanced filter resolution for satellites vs. sub (16x for sats and 128x for sub) this should mean in the system (with LFE in the .1 channel + redirected bass) there was a jump in filter resolution (and FR flatness as a result) from sats to sub. This should mean while the sub was EQ'd in a much precise way, the sats were lacking in flatness, and if the room had anomalies that would have required significant corrections at the transition range (read: below and above the crossover point) it resulted in a more pleasing experience for the ears for sounds coming from the sub compared to sound coming from sats.

Now, with the advent of XT32, as I see it, this is the past, the filter resolutions are not only rocket high (512x) but are also equal, allowing the same flatness for the sats that was a privilege in XT for the sub channel only.

For the fun part, let's try to imagine how XT32 would work in a room heavily (or heavenly) treated with bass traps while the whole room (4 walls and ceiling and floor) was made up of fully reflective glass walls, there is nothing else in the room apart from the HT system but a leather sofa, a glass coffee table (with a glass of beer on top, LOL). How would the pre-out measurement curve look like?
Edited by mogorf - 4/30/13 at 1:53pm
post #61753 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by asere View Post

REW can give you peace of mind but in the end if you cannot tell the difference with ears alone I see no point whether its a tripod or mic stand with boom arm.

+1. smile.gifcool.gif

Don't forget about the shoe box/ pillow combo. tongue.gif
Edited by mogorf - 4/30/13 at 2:02pm
post #61754 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by D Bone View Post

Yea, I don't pretend to have an answer. I should have also noted that all other settings are identical too. Audyssey curve was "Movie" in Onkyo and is "Audyssey" in Denon, DEQ ON @ 0db offset and DV OFF. All Small, ect....

Could have easily been a bad mic with the Onkyo, unfortunately. mad.gif FYI, there are many heavy duty troubleshooters here on this thread available 24/7. This time it's too late for Ya coz you've already swapped Onkyo for a Denon, but feel free to chime in on those hard days. smile.gif
post #61755 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

[QUOTE name="Q

Has anyone ever done any measurements of Audyssey's alleged benefits in the time domain?  Not arguing - wondering.

The claim made (by Feri in a recent post but I don't know if Audyssey has made the same claim, specifically) that Audyssey (any flavor) will/can tame early reflections is not only false, it is absolutely impossible.

I have done many measurements and have seen absolutely no change in the time domain regarding early reflections and my knowledge and experience in the field of acoustics tells me this is impossible anyway.

I only recall reading that Audyssey directly claims "Time Domain" correction, however. This could mean a lot of things and I'm not disputing that in some ways the time domain is affected by the FIR filter Audyssey uses per channel. IE: By implementing a filter (whether FIR taps or biquad from PEQ) to tame a 40hz peak in my own listening room which before EQ (but after treatment - don't yet have tuned absorbers to this frequency) was at about 600ms the effect of the filter is not only a flattened FR but also, by nature of the process, the 40hz mode now decays in 400ms so this can be considered "Time Domain" EQ'ing, even though it's more the effect than the direct intent of the Audyssey filter by itself.

The basic point though is that it is absolutely impossible to electronically get rid of, "[early] reflections shortly after the direct sound."

I use Audyssey XT, but know its limitations and have a properly treated room and external devices (AS-EQ1 and DSP1124P) to set a house curve and by properly treating the room, setting up the listener/speaker positions, and measuring "Pre-EQ" Audyssey doesn't have much to do but definitely adds that last 10% that gets me a text book FR with applied house curve and I wouldn't want to be without it.

I'm definitely not interested in arguing whether or not Audyssey can tame reflections as a little education in the field of acoustics proves this point nor do I have much time these days, but hope this helps clear a few things up.

--J
post #61756 of 70885
Agreed on that last post for sure. Audyssey certainly has its merits but time domain, is not one of them. The only thing it really handles in the time domain is the delay and distance of your speakers which has hardly anything to do with first order reflections (or any other order for that matter). I would however love to see a graph of the house curve you have implemented using your outside EQing tecnhique! Post it if ya got it!
post #61757 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by jevansoh View Post

The claim made (by Feri in a recent post but I don't know if Audyssey has made the same claim, specifically) that Audyssey (any flavor) will/can tame early reflections is not only false, it is absolutely impossible.

I have done many measurements and have seen absolutely no change in the time domain regarding early reflections and my knowledge and experience in the field of acoustics tells me this is impossible anyway.

I only recall reading that Audyssey directly claims "Time Domain" correction, however. This could mean a lot of things and I'm not disputing that in some ways the time domain is affected by the FIR filter Audyssey uses per channel. IE: By implementing a filter (whether FIR taps or biquad from PEQ) to tame a 40hz peak in my own listening room which before EQ (but after treatment - don't yet have tuned absorbers to this frequency) was at about 600ms the effect of the filter is not only a flattened FR but also, by nature of the process, the 40hz mode now decays in 400ms so this can be considered "Time Domain" EQ'ing, even though it's more the effect than the direct intent of the Audyssey filter by itself.

The basic point though is that it is absolutely impossible to electronically get rid of, "[early] reflections shortly after the direct sound."

I use Audyssey XT, but know its limitations and have a properly treated room and external devices (AS-EQ1 and DSP1124P) to set a house curve and by properly treating the room, setting up the listener/speaker positions, and measuring "Pre-EQ" Audyssey doesn't have much to do but definitely adds that last 10% that gets me a text book FR with applied house curve and I wouldn't want to be without it.

I'm definitely not interested in arguing whether or not Audyssey can tame reflections as a little education in the field of acoustics proves this point nor do I have much time these days, but hope this helps clear a few things up.

--J

Jason, it must be warming up in Southern Ohio. You have emerged from hibernation?
post #61758 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Hi Jerry, took a look at your graphs on the Pro Installer Kit thread and thanks for the link, I did miss that post of your's. Now please allow me to describe what I see and how I would interpret the case limited to your one graph called: " Left channel pre-out (no smoothing, blue is XT red is XT32)". Firstly I'd like to break the graph into two parts.

1. Mid to high frequencies, and
2. Low frequencies

1. I would not really look into this range too deeply, because as you have mentioned the graph is unsmoothed, some anomalies can easily happen especially due to a logarithmic scale, maybe a 1/6th smoothing would show a more life like picture. smile.gif

2. Now this is the interesting part. Of course the XT32 curve shows more "detail" than the XT curve shows. I would attribute that to the increased filter resolution of the satellite channels being 512x instead of 16x. That's 32 times more and it shows. smile.gif

If we refer to XT in a different way, i.e. knowing it had an unbalanced filter resolution for satellites vs. sub (16x for sats and 128x for sub) this should mean in the system (with LFE in the .1 channel + redirected bass) there was a jump in filter resolution (and FR flatness as a result) from sats to sub. This should mean while the sub was EQ'd in a much precise way, the sats were lacking in flatness, and if the room had anomalies that would have required significant corrections at the transition range (read: below and above the crossover point) it resulted in a more pleasing experience for the ears for sounds coming from the sub compared to sound coming from sats.

Now, with the advent of XT32, as I see it, this is the past, the filter resolutions are not only rocket high (512x) but are also equal, allowing the same flatness for the sats that was a privilege in XT for the sub channel only.

For the fun part, let's try to imagine how XT32 would work in a room heavily (or heavenly) treated with bass traps while the whole room (4 walls and ceiling and floor) was made up of fully reflective glass walls, there is nothing else in the room apart from the HT system but a leather sofa, a glass coffee table (with a glass of beer on top, LOL). How would the pre-out measurement curve look like?

Feri, what kind of obfuscation is this post? Recall that the question posed by the OP was, can Audyssey be restricted to address only the frequencies below 400 Hz? The answer is obviously no. My response to the OP was that, if he was considering a new AVR with Audyssey, he should target a model with XT32, because XT32 didn't alter the high frequencies as much as previous technologies like XT.

What does your response have to do with this recommendation? eek.gif
post #61759 of 70885
Haha! Jeez.

So xt32 actually plays nicer with the upper freqs? I would love to see some proof of how this works if anyone has it? I can understand the idea behind it, but would love to see anyone show exactly how, other than additional filters the 32 manages this over the previous renditions. I know that is a tough one to show, but could be done I guess. Interesting that the previous iterations would take into effect the filters and consider that the upper freqs could literally be EQ'd to death if one really wanted to go crazy on them...Even at the resolution that Audyssey runs on either version.
post #61760 of 70885
post #61761 of 70885
Also note the links and quotes I provided in this post if you want more evidence and/or want to read up on the initial discovery and discussion: http://www.avsforum.com/t/795421/official-audyssey-thread-faq-in-post-1/61710#post_23260279
post #61762 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Are you paying attention? This reference was provided earlier: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1346723/the-audyssey-pro-installer-kit-thread-faq-in-post-1/3570#post_22725461

I meant to go back to that link when I read over it and simply forgot. Thanks for reposting. Interesting info for sure!

BP, Thanks for the info as well
post #61763 of 70885

^ No problem.  It was an interesting discussion that clarified one of the key differences between XT and XT32.

post #61764 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Could have easily been a bad mic with the Onkyo, unfortunately. mad.gif FYI, there are many heavy duty troubleshooters here on this thread available 24/7. This time it's too late for Ya coz you've already swapped Onkyo for a Denon, but feel free to chime in on those hard days. smile.gif

Thanks for the input, but I am confident it wasn't a bad mic. The sound wasn't bad, just not what I prefer from a system. I have come to the conclusion that there is more to the end result than simply thinking (like I had previously) that Audyssey XT will "always sound the same regardless on the manufacturer". There is more to it based on my first hand experience.
post #61765 of 70885

Figured I would leave my (real life) impression regarding XT32 I have always heard good things and have used up to XT on numerous occasions. I tried the Onkyo TX-NR818 in my dedicated room and after running EQ I felt the surrounds were missing. I re-ran it a few times without any help. I even tried turning them up a bit and they simply got louder. They still sounded muted and not very dynamic (at all). I was using the opening scene of the latest Bond flick for testing.

 

The moment I swapped receivers the surrounds came alive... not any louder (per the old RS sound meter) rather more integrated into the action. Such as the motorbike moving around the room. Anyway, I punted the receiver and overall I'm glad to know I haven't been missing anything not using it over the years. At this point I'm glad I didn't... however I did think vocals sounded very nice.

post #61766 of 70885
Charles -- what you describe sounds like it has nothing to do with XT32. MultEQ just calibrates EQ filters for the speakers, it has nothing to do with volume levels of each speaker. If you felt like "the surrounds were missing" that really doesn't sound like an EQ issue. It's possible there were some other things going on.
post #61767 of 70885
What AVR was swapped in btw?
post #61768 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post

Figured I would leave my (real life) impression regarding XT32 I have always heard good things and have used up to XT on numerous occasions. I tried the Onkyo TX-NR818 in my dedicated room and after running EQ I felt the surrounds were missing. I re-ran it a few times without any help. I even tried turning them up a bit and they simply got louder. They still sounded muted and not very dynamic (at all). I was using the opening scene of the latest Bond flick for testing.

The moment I swapped receivers the surrounds came alive... not any louder (per the old RS sound meter) rather more integrated into the action. Such as the motorbike moving around the room. Anyway, I punted the receiver and overall I'm glad to know I haven't been missing anything not using it over the years. At this point I'm glad I didn't... however I did think vocals sounded very nice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Charles -- what you describe sounds like it has nothing to do with XT32. MultEQ just calibrates EQ filters for the speakers, it has nothing to do with volume levels of each speaker. If you felt like "the surrounds were missing" that really doesn't sound like an EQ issue. It's possible there were some other things going on.


I'm not trying to make this an Onkyo vs Denon thread by any means, but the two share XT and have both been in my room, so here is my additional thought. In the Denon 1713 owners thread I also immediately mentioned that the Denon's XT did a much better job of what I call "Sound field balance" then the Onkyo's XT. Charles is not talking about SPL, he is talking about surround integration, balance and overall envelopment. (correct me if I'm wrong Charles) I had the exact same experience as Charles with 2 different receivers, both with XT and same calibration procedures.
post #61769 of 70885
As I said before, I highly doubt this is some "global" distinction between the two brands. And I also think it's mistaken to attribute everything you hear to the MultEQ calibration software. Just as I think Charles shouldn't attribute his findings to XT32, you shouldn't think that there is necessarily some "difference" in the XT versions between the two receivers because of what you heard. There are plenty of other variables at play.
post #61770 of 70885
All I know is what my lying ears tell me. As I said earlier, I don't pretend to know what the reason is, but my previous belief that "Any receiver with XT will sound the same" was wrong. And I respectfully disagree that Audyssey, be it MultiEQ, DEQ ect... doesn't have anything to do with the envelopment of the sound field. When I defeated Audyssey with either receiver my sound field immediately suffered. So it stands to reason, that yes, it has everything to do with the sound field envelopment, and for whatever reason, is different from receiver to receiver..........At least with my firsthand experience.
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)