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 2107

post #63181 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


He's a brilliant salesman.

And you bought his mechandise but denying its usefullness! Yeah, you know better, eh? smile.gif
post #63182 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Always judge a person by the company they keep. 

What the heck am I doing here with your company Keith?
post #63183 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


He's a brilliant salesman.

And you bought his mechandise but denying its usefullness! Yeah, you know better, eh? smile.gif

 

Audyssey is an excellent automated room correction system.

 

Audyssey is not a perfect automated room correction system.

 

Audyssey can give an excellent result when used properly.

 

Room treatments, optimised speaker placements, a little parametric EQ invariably give better results than Audyssey alone.

 

The ability to understand the above is essential.

post #63184 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Audyssey is an excellent automated room correction system.

Audyssey is not a perfect automated room correction system.

Audyssey can give an excellent result when used properly.

Room treatments, optimised speaker placements, a little parametric EQ invariably give better results than Audyssey alone.

The ability to understand the above is essential.

Sad to see how one is contradicting himself in the same post. Leads to nothing but placebo. Getting matters so complicated with a "little PEQ" tells all. smile.gif I'm mean don't tell anyone! smile.gif
post #63185 of 70886
Be nice, boys.
post #63186 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Sad to see how one is contradicting himself in the same post. Leads to nothing but placebo. Getting matters so complicated with a "little PEQ" tells all. smile.gif I'm mean don't tell anyone! smile.gif

You think he was contradicting himself? Perhaps reading a little slower would help. Think in terms of theories...There are many forms of EQ ing sound in a room.
post #63187 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlpowell84 View Post

You think he was contradicting himself? Perhaps reading a little slower would help. Think in terms of theories...There are many forms of EQ ing sound in a room.

True, but this is the Audyssey forum where rooms are supposed to be EQ'd by the use of Audyssey's FIR filters. Put a mixture by adding an IIR PEQ filter on top of it and you get to "UnpredictableLand". Back it up with single point measurements as evidential facts taken at the MLP and your done with your own alleged "sciencific proof". May sound good to the individual who is lacking knowledge of what is being done. Preference is the word that comes to mind. smile.gif
Edited by mogorf - 7/4/13 at 5:24pm
post #63188 of 70886

Changing the subject, I had some new window treatments installed yesterday, so I figured I should run a fresh Audyssey calibration in case the treatments altered the room 's audio characteristics.  (Typical behavior for me.)  While I was measuring the post-calibration results using REW, I thought I would have a little fun.  I measured left, right and center from the MLP, using an EMM-6 calibrated mic oriented towards the ceiling, as I usually do.  Then, I flipped the mic 180 degrees and measured the same speakers from the same spot, with the mic pointed directly downwards (the tip at ear height as well, of course).  Here are the results:

 

 

 

 

So, based on this small test, which I am sure some of you will find flawed, it seems as if having the mic pointed straight up, or straight down, is not all that important.  HST, I will continue to point the mic towards the ceiling, otherwise I would not sleep well at night.

post #63189 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

True, but this is the Audyssey forum where rooms are supposed to be EQ'd by the use of Audyssey's FIR filters. Put a mixture by adding an IIR PEQ filter on top of it and you get to "UnpredictableLand". Back it up with single point measurements as evidential facts taken at the MLP and your done with your own alleged "sciencific proof". May sound good to the individual who is lacking knowledge of what is being done. Preference is the word that comes to mind. smile.gif

So people who participate in this forum are only supposed to use Audyssey as THE only form of EQ? Keith did not suggest to use PEQ on top of Audyssey. He simply said if you had two options...#1 is Audyssey and #2 is PEQ with room treatments and careful speaker placement. #2 would obviously give you the best results. Audyssey is used best as icing on the cake. Do all you can to flatten your response, with room treatments or at least speaker placement, then use THE great Audyssey to help it even more. 1+1=2
post #63190 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

As for the Shakespeare demo, Keith is correct about the way Chris sells it.
Neither of you have ever proven that you are researchers of another campus, so why should your words be taken granted.
When did I ask anyone to take my words for granted? To the contrary, in the post you were replying to I specifically said "No one has to take my word for it, they can try it at home on their own system."

Likewise when discussing DEQ's surround boost being based on the mistaken premise that sound decreases at a different rate around us than in front of us when the overall level is lowered. Rather than expect anyone to take my word for it, I encouraged others to try it and, the couple that did, found that sound levels decrease at the same rate irrespective of direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

it is really sad to see people comment on something they really know nothing about
Then let me tell you something about the Shakespeare recording, since I got to hear it as part of Holman's CES demo about a decade ago. It's an in-the-open performance of 'Midsummer Night's Dream', where the audience is in the middle of the performers. The other two parts of the demo were a ping pong match that constantly changed direction/azimuth and finally a Herbie Hancock multi-channel piece.

The demo did its job of showing how poor 5.1 sounded compared to 10.2, just as Chris told you, though it was mostly due to how they laid out the 5.1 speakers. The front speaker spread and the surrounds being well behind the listeners all but insured a noticable gap between the front soundstage and surround field. No surprise then that a pair of wide speakers conveniently filled the gap (that their speaker placement had created to begin with).

Keep in mind that the demo pieces were discrete 10.2 recordings, not DSX generated wides and heights (Audyssey didn't exist at the time). So when Chris tells you about the improvement made by the performer's voice being able to pass through the wide speaker, he's describing a middle channel that connects the front and side channels (like Neo:X does), not a processed copy of just the front channel (like DSX does). But that reality is not how he sells it, because DSX doesn't do what he described. And that's why I agreed with Keith.
post #63191 of 70886
Big weakness of audessy is that it depends on a mic that is used for calibration. If your mic is defective or not accurate audessy will sound like crap.

There is no way to check if your mic is actually doing it's job.
post #63192 of 70886
Yes there is if you turn the mic upside down and... biggrin.gif
Edited by comfynumb - 7/4/13 at 9:12pm
post #63193 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by dandan123 View Post

Big weakness of audessy is that it depends on a mic that is used for calibration. If your mic is defective or not accurate audessy will sound like crap.

There is no way to check if your mic is actually doing it's job.

Well how would "you" even know if "yours" is ok if no one knows?
It almost seems like Audyssey is a waste of time if no one knows if their mic is good or bad, not the best system I would think and very unreliable. rolleyes.gif
post #63194 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Audyssey is an excellent automated room correction system.

Audyssey is not a perfect automated room correction system.

Audyssey can give an excellent result when used properly.

Room treatments, optimised speaker placements, a little parametric EQ invariably give better results than Audyssey alone.

The ability to understand the above is essential.

Sad to see how one is contradicting himself in the same post. Leads to nothing but placebo. Getting matters so complicated with a "little PEQ" tells all. smile.gif I'm mean don't tell anyone! smile.gif

 

 

And now the Oracle of Audyssey knows better than Toole!!!  Unbelievable.

 

Only yesterday, Sanjay posted a link to a paper by Floyd Toole. I guess you either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it. To make it easier, I have copied some of the relevant parts concerning the use of PEQ:

 

"And, what about the resonant peak? When we listened, it was clearly audible, making kick drums “boom”, and all bass inarticulate and floppy. All bass tended to be “one note bass”, the “tunes” in the bass guitar were all but gone. We could have blamed the woofers, accusing them of being slow, uncontrolled, and tuneless. But we know better.

 

The solution? Because the room resonance is a minimum-phase phenomenon, we designed a parametric filter to attenuate the peak, and the system is instantly transformed. The bass was tight, the guitars played tunes at low frequencies, explosions no longer had a pitch. The room sounded great.

 

"Remember room resonances, those things that cause “boom” , “hangover” , “ringing” , “coloration”, and that mask our ability to follow bass melodies. They behave as minimum-phase phenomena, and they can be equalized if the measurements have enough resolution to show the details of what is happening, and if the resonances are addressed with carefully matched parametric equalizers.

Here is a room with a really big boom. I am familiar with this one, as it was in my last house. It was where I began experimenting with selective parametric equalization, as an alternative to moving the furniture around or engaging in massive reconstruction."

 

(My bolding).

 

I know you don't fully understand parametric EQ, Feri, and not so long ago thought it was the same as 'graphic EQ', but at least try to learn something instead of parroting the ceaseless, and frankly ludicrous, opinion that nothing can possibly improve on Audyssey. 

 

Audyssey is a great tool but it has serious limitations. It is ideal for those who do not wish to, or cannot, treat their rooms, and for many it gives a good result. But it is no substitute for a proper understanding of acoustics, nor a willingness to learn how to use independent measuring techniques, nor an ability to properly treat a room with acoustic treatments. Nor indeed the judicious use of some parametric EQ, which, as Toole himself says, can instantly transform the sound of a system. 

 

I don't know if you think you are standing up for Audyssey or what, but your half-baked misinformation not only damages whatever credibility you have left here, but it also damages Audyssey too, because anyone believing your "Audyssey is perfect and is all you need" mantra can then become seriously disillusioned with Audyssey when/if they discover that, in truth, it is not perfect and it is not all they need.

 

 

 

post #63195 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlpowell84 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Sad to see how one is contradicting himself in the same post. Leads to nothing but placebo. Getting matters so complicated with a "little PEQ" tells all. smile.gif I'm mean don't tell anyone! smile.gif

You think he was contradicting himself? Perhaps reading a little slower would help. Think in terms of theories...There are many forms of EQ ing sound in a room.

 

Sadly, for some, there is only one form of EQ. I say 'sadly' because holding such a belief then prevents the believer from trying any or all of the other forms of EQ and, ultimately, leads to them having a system that cannot sound as good as its potential. 

post #63196 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlpowell84 View Post

You think he was contradicting himself? Perhaps reading a little slower would help. Think in terms of theories...There are many forms of EQ ing sound in a room.

True, but this is the Audyssey forum where rooms are supposed to be EQ'd by the use of Audyssey's FIR filters. Put a mixture by adding an IIR PEQ filter on top of it and you get to "UnpredictableLand". Back it up with single point measurements as evidential facts taken at the MLP and your done with your own alleged "sciencific proof".

 

LOL. So if someone uses Audyssey then they mustn't use any other form of EQ, or comment on it in the context of (also) using Audyssey? rolleyes.gif

 

 

 

Quote:
 May sound good to the individual who is lacking knowledge of what is being done. Preference is the word that comes to mind. smile.gif

 

Does that include then, or exclude, Toole?  LOL again.

post #63197 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Changing the subject, I had some new window treatments installed yesterday, so I figured I should run a fresh Audyssey calibration in case the treatments altered the room 's audio characteristics.  (Typical behavior for me.)  While I was measuring the post-calibration results using REW, I thought I would have a little fun.  I measured left, right and center from the MLP, using an EMM-6 calibrated mic oriented towards the ceiling, as I usually do.  Then, I flipped the mic 180 degrees and measured the same speakers from the same spot, with the mic pointed directly downwards (the tip at ear height as well, of course).  Here are the results:

 

 

 

 

So, based on this small test, which I am sure some of you will find flawed, it seems as if having the mic pointed straight up, or straight down, is not all that important.  HST, I will continue to point the mic towards the ceiling, otherwise I would not sleep well at night.

 

We can always rely on you, Jerry, to dig out the mic and start measuring!  Thanks for your ceaseless efforts.

 

Seems Fitz's theory is blasted right out of the water. 

post #63198 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlpowell84 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

True, but this is the Audyssey forum where rooms are supposed to be EQ'd by the use of Audyssey's FIR filters. Put a mixture by adding an IIR PEQ filter on top of it and you get to "UnpredictableLand". Back it up with single point measurements as evidential facts taken at the MLP and your done with your own alleged "sciencific proof". May sound good to the individual who is lacking knowledge of what is being done. Preference is the word that comes to mind. smile.gif

So people who participate in this forum are only supposed to use Audyssey as THE only form of EQ? Keith did not suggest to use PEQ on top of Audyssey. He simply said if you had two options...#1 is Audyssey and #2 is PEQ with room treatments and careful speaker placement. #2 would obviously give you the best results. Audyssey is used best as icing on the cake. Do all you can to flatten your response, with room treatments or at least speaker placement, then use THE great Audyssey to help it even more. 1+1=2

 

Absolutely. I would never be without Audyssey (unless something better comes along) and I too believe it does a great job within its design parameters and limitations. As the icing on the cake, it does a great job of finessing any remaining issues, after treatments etc, which we all have. Nobody has a perfect room, almost nobody has the time, knowledge or ability to get their room 100% right, often WAF imposes itself too, so we are mostly all left with anomalies and Audyssey can help finesse those away or at least improve on them. Most people, unblinded by fanboyism, can see this of course.

post #63199 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

As for the Shakespeare demo, Keith is correct about the way Chris sells it.
Neither of you have ever proven that you are researchers of another campus, so why should your words be taken granted.
When did I ask anyone to take my words for granted? To the contrary, in the post you were replying to I specifically said "No one has to take my word for it, they can try it at home on their own system."

Likewise when discussing DEQ's surround boost being based on the mistaken premise that sound decreases at a different rate around us than in front of us when the overall level is lowered. Rather than expect anyone to take my word for it, I encouraged others to try it and, the couple that did, found that sound levels decrease at the same rate irrespective of direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

it is really sad to see people comment on something they really know nothing about
Then let me tell you something about the Shakespeare recording, since I got to hear it as part of Holman's CES demo about a decade ago. It's an in-the-open performance of 'Midsummer Night's Dream', where the audience is in the middle of the performers. The other two parts of the demo were a ping pong match that constantly changed direction/azimuth and finally a Herbie Hancock multi-channel piece.

The demo did its job of showing how poor 5.1 sounded compared to 10.2, just as Chris told you, though it was mostly due to how they laid out the 5.1 speakers. The front speaker spread and the surrounds being well behind the listeners all but insured a noticable gap between the front soundstage and surround field. No surprise then that a pair of wide speakers conveniently filled the gap (that their speaker placement had created to begin with).

Keep in mind that the demo pieces were discrete 10.2 recordings, not DSX generated wides and heights (Audyssey didn't exist at the time). So when Chris tells you about the improvement made by the performer's voice being able to pass through the wide speaker, he's describing a middle channel that connects the front and side channels (like Neo:X does), not a processed copy of just the front channel (like DSX does). But that reality is not how he sells it, because DSX doesn't do what he described. And that's why I agreed with Keith.

 

And I remember, and took note, of when you relayed this interesting story before, based on actual 'being there' experience too. 

 

As they are saying quite a lot at the moment here in the UK on the Sports Channel, 'game, set and match' to you, Sanjay. :)

 

EDIT: What I didn't remember is that it was Feri that you were addressing when you relayed the story about a year ago, nor that it was in response to Feri quoting the exact same, disingenuous post from Chris!  

 

Here is the exchange for those with apparently failing short(ish) term memory:

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/795421/official-audyssey-thread-faq-in-post-1/56160#post_22344903


Edited by kbarnes701 - 7/5/13 at 4:37am
post #63200 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dandan123 View Post

Big weakness of audessy is that it depends on a mic that is used for calibration. If your mic is defective or not accurate audessy will sound like crap.

There is no way to check if your mic is actually doing it's job.

Well how would "you" even know if "yours" is ok if no one knows?
It almost seems like Audyssey is a waste of time if no one knows if their mic is good or bad, not the best system I would think and very unreliable. rolleyes.gif

 

It is quite easy to test the Audyssey mic against a calibrated mic using REW. People have done this and discovered that the Audyssey mic generally seems to perform to spec.

post #63201 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Be nice, boys.

 

Quite right, Jerry, and thanks for reminding us. I have deleted some of my recent posts which were definitely Off Topic.

post #63202 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post



I don't know if you think you are standing up for Audyssey or what, but your half-baked misinformation not only damages whatever credibility you have left here, but it also damages Audyssey too, because anyone believing your "Audyssey is perfect and is all you need" mantra can then become seriously disillusioned with Audyssey when/if they discover that, in truth, it is not perfect and it is not all they need.

Keith, also please delete the bolded part. You (just like any othe member here) do not have such a power to make a judgement on any another member like that. Please understand and act accordingly. Thank you. smile.gif
post #63203 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post



I don't know if you think you are standing up for Audyssey or what, but your half-baked misinformation not only damages whatever credibility you have left here, but it also damages Audyssey too, because anyone believing your "Audyssey is perfect and is all you need" mantra can then become seriously disillusioned with Audyssey when/if they discover that, in truth, it is not perfect and it is not all they need.

Keith, also please delete the bolded part. You (just like any othe member here) do not have such a power to make a judgement on any another member like that. Please understand and act accordingly. Thank you. smile.gif

 

It is my genuinely held opinion and, just like any other member here, I am entitled to hold it. I am not talking about you behind your back - I am addressing you directly. I do not believe my post there is offensive and I do believe that everything I say in it can be justified and proven. It is also on topic.

 

I mean it - your constant mantra does not enhance the credibility of either yourself or Audyssey. Your credibility is in shreds, Feri. I do not relish saying that to you but it is true. Only today you have argued, for example, with Sanjay about the exact same topic you argued with him a year ago, when he comprehensively demolished your argument at that time. To then repeat the same disingenuous post from Chris, purporting it to be a discussion of DSX, which had not even been invented at the time, and to accuse Sanjay of "knowing nothing" can only harm the credibility of any member, surely?

 

Similarly, accusing me of knowing nothing because I refer to PEQ does you no service at all. You are not disagreeing with me - you are challenging one of acoustics's greatest minds, in the form of Floyd Toole, who also values PEQ rather highly in the search for improved sound. Seriously, if you reflect for a moment, how do you think that comes across to other members?


Edited by kbarnes701 - 7/5/13 at 4:39am
post #63204 of 70886
Moderator

knock it off...
post #63205 of 70886
So... As promised to Jerry, based on his measurements, one more interesting bit of visualizing stuff from me to comparison of XT (green) vs XT32 (red).

Impulse response of pre-out measurements in decibel scale:


In linear scale (represents taps more or less "as is"):
post #63206 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

So... As promised to Jerry, based on his measurements, one more interesting bit of visualizing stuff from me to comparison of XT (green) vs XT32 (red).

Impulse response of pre-out measurements in decibel scale:


In linear scale (represents taps more or less "as is"):

Very interesting Igor. If its not too much to ask, can you make another impulse response graph with Audyssey turned off? Thanks. smile.gif
post #63207 of 70886
I have only what Jerry have shared (no without-Audyssey measurements with the same hardware). But, looking to my own measurements, all the stuff (ringing) happens within 'first meter' of delay. Then it falls to 0 in the % scale and it is straight line starting from that, and on the dB scale it looks like noise below -55dB (it is with very poor ADC, it depends on the noise floor of the measurement hardware, but looking to the Jerry measurements it looks that there is very little noise in them).
post #63208 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post


The graphs do look a lot better with Audyssey ON, don't they? Shame that is not what I hear.


The RTA I use is the freeware "Room EQ Wizard". It's a great program, that is very well thought-out and easy to use.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/


You should check it out. You seem like the type that would find it interesting and useful. You will need to pick up a measurement mic and a phantom power supply to use it, which should run you under $100 for the pair.

http://www.zzounds.com/item--BEHECM8000
mhej
http://www.zzounds.com/item--ARTPHANIII


Cheers,


- Tim
I simply cannot find any way to get to different target curves in the Onkyo 705, neither is there any mention of these in the manual; same for the 805 and the 875. It seems to me that there are three main differences from the Audyssey MultEQ XT as present in the Denon and Marantz models:
1) During setup the adjusted speaker levels and crossovers are displayed, but there is no information about equalization frequencies.
2) The number of positions that can be measured has gone up from 6 to 8.
3) No target curve selection. I suspect only "Flat" is being selected, and letting the user adjust the settings to taste using tone controls; the bass and treble can be re-adjusted up or down by 10dB. Alternatively, Audyssey can be disabled and equalization applied by hand.
post #63209 of 70886
Has anyone else tried a "smaller" mic pattern, centered more around the MLP? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. I'm going to try this but with the holiday it's just been too loud around my house.

Thanks,
John.
Edited by comfynumb - 7/5/13 at 6:52am
post #63210 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by sswfnhtu520 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post


The graphs do look a lot better with Audyssey ON, don't they? Shame that is not what I hear.


The RTA I use is the freeware "Room EQ Wizard". It's a great program, that is very well thought-out and easy to use.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/


You should check it out. You seem like the type that would find it interesting and useful. You will need to pick up a measurement mic and a phantom power supply to use it, which should run you under $100 for the pair.

http://www.zzounds.com/item--BEHECM8000
mhej
http://www.zzounds.com/item--ARTPHANIII


Cheers,


- Tim
I simply cannot find any way to get to different target curves in the Onkyo 705, neither is there any mention of these in the manual; same for the 805 and the 875. It seems to me that there are three main differences from the Audyssey MultEQ XT as present in the Denon and Marantz models:
1) During setup the adjusted speaker levels and crossovers are displayed, but there is no information about equalization frequencies.
2) The number of positions that can be measured has gone up from 6 to 8.
3) No target curve selection. I suspect only "Flat" is being selected, and letting the user adjust the settings to taste using tone controls; the bass and treble can be re-adjusted up or down by 10dB. Alternatively, Audyssey can be disabled and equalization applied by hand.

 

I'm not sure if there is a question in there or not. I used to have a 705 a long time ago (still do, in my attic in fact) and I can confirm that it uses 8 mic positions (as do all XT units AFAIK) and also that it does not feature the Flat/Music or Audyssey/Movie curve settings.

 

BTW, with only one post, how do you get 10 'thumbs ups', especially as that one post has none?  Just interested...

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)