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 2115

post #63421 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathanc View Post

I don't know if this was directed at me. If it was, you've misunderstood my post. I fully intend to tweak every aspect of my sound system, however, due to the sheer size of my screen and speakers, I have very little wiggle room until I fabricate my own false wall. Given the suggestions for placement, I've done all I can do unless I a) Convert my subs to sealed enclosures b) Place my front soundstage behind the screen. Until I decide on those, I am pretty much stuck, so there's nowhere to go from here except to actually sit down and watch some content.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

To ask for detailed suggestions and advice, which certain people are always happy to give in spades, while knowing at the time of asking that such suggestions would never be implemented or even seriously considered is very poor form IMO. If people routinely did this, then the givers of advice would soon give up giving advice and who could blame them? 

Even sadder in some ways, the people who gratuitously ask for such advice, without ever intending to take it when given, are also experiencing systems that are bound to sound relatively poor. They may delude themselves that their systems "sound good" and, in the absence of any means of comparison, become used to sub-par sound, but they will never experience what their systems can truly sound like once optimised. 

The suggestions to use acoustic science to calculate optimum speaker and subwoofer placements yield substantial benefits - far greater than the benefits of using electronic EQ alone - and best of all, it is a FREE upgrade. Having experienced the difference myself, I recommend that if someone is only going to use ONE method of optimising their sound, this is the one they choose. Even people like myself, who initially thought there were no alternative placement possibilities due to room layout, size etc, have proven to themselves (with expert guidance) that this is not necessarily the case. In my case, all that was required was to move the L and R speakers about 12 inches and one subwoofer about 36 inches. Not only is the sound better, but the room looks better aesthetically too! I won’t post the 'before' and 'after' graph again as surely everyone is bored with it by now, but it is objective confirmation of what my ears are hearing. 

Not Keith - but I'm pretty certain (99.9%) that his comments were not directed at you - I imagine that when he wakes up and takes his breakfast he will confirm my comments.
post #63422 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Are these suppositions correct?

1. The back wall offers placements equally effective as the front.

2. One can combine the front and back wall placements to good effect.

3. The subs should be firing in polarity.
1. Yes, when I say 1/4 room width in from the side walls, it can be on the front wall or back wall or anywhere in between (Keith has his dual subs a few feet forward of him while Jonathan has his dual subs a few feet behind him).

2. Depends on how you combine front and back wall placements. Jerry has subs at the mid-point of his back wall and subs at the quarter-points of his front wall, which is symmetrical from left to right. What wouldn't work is a sub in the front left corner and another sub diagonally across in the back right corner. For the pressure from both subs to combine properly, it helps to have them across from each other.

3. Yup, the modes themselves are in opposite phase on opposite sides of the room, so cancellation doesn't require that your bass drivers be out of phase. However, in the real world, if playing with the phase knob on one of your subs results in better consistency across your seating, then I ain't gonna be mad at you. And neither will Audyssey.
post #63423 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I took two sets of measurements, one at 80dB and one at 85dB, which on my system occurs at MV settings of -16 and -11, respectively.  Audyssey and DEQ were on.  I measured RLO settings of 0, 5, 10, and 15.  Here are the results, 1/6 smoothing:







Here is a summary of the results:




So, superimposing the Audyssey only graph at @85dB with the Audyssey+DEQ @80dB, we get this graph:




So, the two MV settings output the exact same amount of bass at 27Hz (where the curves cross), with [URL=mailto:Aud+DEW@80dB]Aud+DEW@80dB[/URL] producing less and less boost up to approximately 150Hz, where the two graphs track at a 5dB difference towards higher frequencies.

Does this answer your question?  What does it tell you?

@Keith, perhaps this post should be linked in your FAQ under "What does RLO actually do?".

And @Feri, no, I did not take multiple measurements across many positions and average the results.
A million thanks to the graphs and explanation.
post #63424 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

1. Yes, when I say 1/4 room width in from the side walls, it can be on the front wall or back wall or anywhere in between (Keith has his dual subs a few feet forward of him while Jonathan has his dual subs a few feet behind him).

Question about this, since I have no back wall in regards to the theater, are my subs considered mid-point at the sides (actually 2/3 to the front) being that the back wall is some 20 feet behind ? Would I see some extra SPL from having them against the front wall ?
post #63425 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post


It's either how I phrased it or how you parsed what I wrote.

If I were to suggest spreading your subwoofers 1/2 room width apart, that might sound confusing to someone used to hearing placement in terms of 1/4 points of room width, but it's the same thing. 1/4 of room width in from the side walls is 1/2 room width apart.

Likewise, suggesting the L/R speakers be 1/3 room width from the centre speaker is the same as suggesting the L/R speakers be spread 2/3 of room width apart. That will put your L/C/R speakers at 1/6, 3/6 and 5/6 of room width:



Which happen to be the null locations of your 3rd width mode (87Hz). What do you think will happen when you place the woofers of your L/C/Rs there? Remember what happened when you placed your subs at the 2nd width null locations.
Right numbers, wrong fractions. 1/3 and 2/3 of room width would be 78" from the side walls, not 39" (that's 1/6 of room width in from the side walls).

IF your L/C/R speakers span 156" (13') in a straight line, then sitting 11' from your centre speaker will give you the old stereo recommendation of creating an equilateral triangle with your L/R speakers (60° spread).

Looking at your room diagram, you are sitting in-line with your side speakers, which are 12' away from your front wall. From that seating location, isn't it possible to have your centre speaker 11' from you, such that a 13' spread would result in your L/R speakers are at ±30° from centre line (which Audyssey recommends as well)?

 

Sanjay,

 

I have reviewed your recommendation.  I agree with part of it, but still have a question about another. 

 

I still don't understand your arithmetic here:  The Mode Calculator shows the 87Hz mode null at 3 1/4 ft from the left side wall.  This is 39 inches, which is what I stated in my original post.  Why is 39 inches incorrect?

 

I agree that if I placed the left and right speakers 156 inches apart, then I could attain the proper 30 degree angle by increasing the distance from the MLP to the center speaker to 11'3". 

 

However, we are back to my original issues--this would place the left/right speakers practically next to the DSX wide speakers, and place the MLP right up against the subs that are on the back wall.  So, much as I would like to address the 87Hz issue by moving the speakers around, it introduces several other problems that are at least as unpleasant as the 87Hz issue.

 

Thanks for your recommendation, but I'm not sure it is the right solution for my listening room.

post #63426 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathanc View Post

Question about this, since I have no back wall in regards to the theater, are my subs considered mid-point at the sides (actually 2/3 to the front) being that the back wall is some 20 feet behind ?
Midpoint would be exactly between the front wall and back wall of the room (room = theatre plus bar area). Is that where your subs are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathanc View Post

Would I see some extra SPL from having them against the front wall ?
Hard to say, because you would lose some SPL by moving them away from you but gain some SPL by having them in the front corners of the room. Are they currently in the walkway on either side of your seating?
post #63427 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post


Since this is the case Keith, I just wish we knew the very best place to get the best result. Following the mic placements from the FAQ can produce a better reading than another, with maybe the mic only 1" or 2" different from the previous EQ. Your room and Jerrys might be almost perfect, so maybe your Audyssey results are more consistent than many others.

If Jerry never ever tries another position than the dots marked on the floor, how does he ever know that a different position might produce a better result?

BTW guys....Doing my first REW tonight so hopefully I can post some results for your expert help.cool.gif

 

Murray, let's be clear on what has been claimed.  I said that if attention is paid to the calibration technique, which includes using exactly the same measuring points (at least close), the same number of points, keeping the mic exactly at ear height and pointed at the ceiling, etc., then subsequent calibrations should produce consistent results (assuming nothing else has changed, of course).  I stand by this statement, because my extensive experience running calibrations has proven this over and over again.  I do not find Audyssey to be a capricious product--if it were, I would have discontinued using it long ago

 

Having said that, consistency doesn't depend on how "perfect" the room is.  Good techniques should produce consistent results, whether in an acoustically good listening room, or an acoustically-challenged room.

 

And no one said that anyone has found the "perfect" mic placements to produce the absolute best results.  There are far too many permutations and combinations to ever make such a claim.  Nor do I want to spend an exorbitant amount of time trying to squeeze the last drop of perfection out of my system (regardless of my reputation, I know...).

 

 

+1 to all that. I too get very consistent results so long as all the parameters you mention are consistent. If someone is getting inconsistent results then either they are not ensuring that all the parameters remain unchanged, something in the room is different, or there is another problem with technique somewhere along the line.  

post #63428 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Murray, let's be clear on what has been claimed.  I said that if attention is paid to the calibration technique, which includes using exactly the same measuring points (at least close), the same number of points, keeping the mic exactly at ear height and pointed at the ceiling, etc., then subsequent calibrations should produce consistent results (assuming nothing else has changed, of course).  I stand by this statement, because my extensive experience running calibrations has proven this over and over again.  I do not find Audyssey to be a capricious product--if it were, I would have discontinued using it long ago

Having said that, consistency doesn't depend on how "perfect" the room is.  Good techniques should produce consistent results, whether in an acoustically good listening room, or an acoustically-challenged room.

But, but, but,...Jerry, recently you have made two measurements with different mic pattern placements (one as usual and one as Feri's suggestion) and you said there we no significant differences when listening to the results, if I remember well. Then we tried to conclude something like a well treated room is not as sensitive to mic placement patterns (apart from the first placement at the MLP, of course) as a non-treated room would be.

 

I think the point with a good room is that Audyssey has far less to do, so it seems reasonable that the results of the different Audyssey calibrations will be more similar in these circumstances. Nonetheless, if the mic positions are substantially different from one calibration to the next, this is not the best route towards consistency. What I am trying to say is that if one is looking for consistent results, then the main parameters (mic positions, mic height, same number of measurenents etc) need to be consistent too, regardless of the nature of the room.

post #63429 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Measuring the dynamic component of DEQ would be a challenge. 

Why a challenge Jerry? Keep the MV setting constant at, say, -20 dB and change the input level. Say, it's done with 4 different input levels with 5 dB increments it would show a 20 dB range of how the dymanic part of DEQ works. cool.gif

Expected result: the softer the passage the higher the bass boost will be. smile.gif

 

This has been done before. Was it Igor?  It may be in a different thread.  Jerry's latest graphs were showing what RLO does rather than what DEQ does. I think we are all fairly agreed on what DEQ does aren't we?

post #63430 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

 
Well REW help me too find the best placement for the mic, I would love to know how I find out?

 

Not really, although you will easily be able to see, with REW, the significant differences between one mic position and another***. This will help explain why it is important to be consistent with Audyssey mic positions if you want to achieve a consistent result. The only way, AFAIK, to find the "best" positions for the Audyssey mic is trial and error and experience. Chances are everyone will have a different idea of what is "best" and it will also be dependent on the room and all sorts of other factors. I would always advise starting from the Audyssey recommendations (there is a chart in the FAQ) and working from there. In fact, in a HT like yours, their recommendations are probably the "best" for you anyway because you are trying to get a good result across several seats, as opposed to Jerry and myself who are trying to get a great result for one seat.  Unfortunately, a great result across several seats is probably going to be next to impossible unless you are starting a brand new room from scratch, which few of us have the luxury of doing. It always comes down to compromise in the end. 

 

*** When you have a spare half hour, take a REW measurement with the mic at the MLP, then move it two inches in any direction, then repeat a few times, then compare the graphs.

post #63431 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

And no one said that anyone has found the "perfect" mic placements to produce the absolute best results. 

Correct no one mentioned the "perfect" mic placement, but Keith mentioned you and he had found the "best" for your circumstances.

Having found the best spots to use in our own circumstances

 

Yes but our circumstances are nothing like yours - you have several seats in three rows; Jerry and I have (or care about) only one seat, centre stage. We have found our "best" locations through hundreds of trials and errors. You will do the same eventually, if you stick with it.

post #63432 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Measuring the dynamic component of DEQ would be a challenge. 

Why a challenge Jerry? Keep the MV setting constant at, say, -20 dB and change the input level. Say, it's done with 4 different input levels with 5 dB increments it would show a 20 dB range of how the dymanic part of DEQ works. cool.gif

Expected result: the softer the passage the higher the bass boost will be. smile.gif

Feri - this was already done in a recent discussion where you were a very active participant. Need I remind you that your hypothesis was correct and the measurements clearly showed more boost with softer input....... Or...... COMPRESSION wink.gifeek.gif

 

Uh-oh..... :)

post #63433 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathanc View Post

I don't know if this was directed at me. If it was, you've misunderstood my post. I fully intend to tweak every aspect of my sound system, however, due to the sheer size of my screen and speakers, I have very little wiggle room until I fabricate my own false wall. Given the suggestions for placement, I've done all I can do unless I a) Convert my subs to sealed enclosures b) Place my front soundstage behind the screen. Until I decide on those, I am pretty much stuck, so there's nowhere to go from here except to actually sit down and watch some content.

 

It wasn't in the least directed at you ;)  I have no doubt about the sincerity of your questions and intentions. In fact, I am looking forward to your further reports as you make progress. 

post #63434 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Right numbers, wrong fractions. 1/3 and 2/3 of room width would be 78" from the side walls, not 39" (that's 1/6 of room width in from the side walls).
I still don't understand your arithmetic here:  The Mode Calculator shows the 87Hz mode null at 3 1/4 ft from the left side wall.  This is 39 inches, which is what I stated in my original post.  Why is 39 inches incorrect?
39 inches is correct. But that's 1/6 of room width, not 1/3. As I said above, the number is correct (39 inches) but not the fraction (1/3). Not sure how that 1/3 fraction came up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Thanks for your recommendation, but I'm not sure it is the right solution for my listening room.
Agreed, not worth reducing that one dip if it results in too many other compromises for you. Down the road, if you ever get an itch to move your rear subs, consider placing them along the side walls to see if that helps with your 3rd width mode. For the moment, I would take a break from low frequency tweaking in your room. As I mentioned in the REW thread, you already have some of the most controlled bass decay time I've seen, so maybe time to turn to other aspects of your set-up.
post #63435 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

So you are saying a preference. What about all of the other people in all of those other seats in those "three rows"? Do they all have the same preference or do you know best?

This is why many people strive to come close to the Audyssey Reference target curve as derived over decades of research in Audyssey Labs and various listening rooms. This provides sort of a "base level", a common denominator, if you will, as opposed to counting on what sounds good to your "ears" being best for everyone else.

Gee, your post sounds like I'm breaking all the rules of Audyssey!

I think you need to go back and read the post I made....
I never mentioned anything about changing anything from the book, I never deviate from that!

I aim for the best sound I can get over all the rows, some people on here only care about one seat.

I said the 1st mic position I used yesterday was slightly different to the one I had always used. When you have three rows of seats over risers one needs to decide which of the three rows is going to be the MLP, you cant have three MLP.

For me, the mid and back row are the most important for me and my guests, the new mic position I used was between these to rows, that I called the MLP and that was my compromise.

 

I think Gary was saying that when you use a preference, based on one person's ears, it may not be the same preference for all the other listeners. I agree with him. What you consider to be superb bass might be considered, for example, insufficient bass to the next guy. That's preference for you. Gary is saying if you strive for Reference (defined in this context by Audyssey, which one could argue is simply another sort of preference LOL) you will probably get a more consistent result across all your seats. I agree with him on that too.

 

The problem with several seats in three rows is that you will probably never get a great result in every seat. Actually that is not true - I believe Roger Dressler has achieved this, but Roger is a professional and his HT is more advanced than that of most people - you can check it out from the link in his sig - well worth doing). But for most people, lacking in Roger's expertise and not having a room built from scratch, getting a great result across all the seats is probably not going to happen. So you have to be realistic in what can be achieved. You can go, for example, for a great result in Row 2 and let the other seats fall where they do. Or you can go for a good result across several seats. I  think you have to decide which model you are after and then pursue it. Do you, for example, always use all the seats, or do you mainly use one row with the other rows being used now and then for the occasional 'blockbuster evening'?  If the latter, I would optimise for one row. In fact, I would personally optimise for MY seat, if it didn't cause massive issues elsewhere. I'd do this on the basis that it is I who have laid out all the money and all the time so it is I who should see the greatest return on investment ;)  If you always use all the seats, then accept a good result across all seats. Chances are your family and friends are far, far, far less interested in SQ than you are you know. I could sit Mrs Keith on top of one of the subs and she would be happy so long as she enjoyed the movie itself. 

post #63436 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggsantafe View Post

Not Keith - but I'm pretty certain (99.9%) that his comments were not directed at you - I imagine that when he wakes up and takes his breakfast he will confirm my comments.

 

Breakfast consumed. Your comments are confirmed :)

post #63437 of 70894
Hi there!

I had the opportunity to do a few more testing and measures to compare XT32 and Antimode. If you remember my previous posts I had tested:
- no correction,
- Antimode ON,
- XT32 ON.
(the graphs from REW can be found a few pages back in the topic)


Well yesterday afternoon I had one hour on my own at home, and I did the last test I wanted to perform: Antimode AND XT32 together.
I did a 8 spots Audyssey calibration with the Antimode 8033-S turned ON, then ran a couple of tests with REW to check the results with:
- no correction
- Antimode ON alone
- Antimode AND Audyssey XT32 ON

And to test it well I even took the measures on three different spots:
- the center spot, where the Antimode was calibrated and that is the 1st spot for the Audyssey calibration,
- the two spots where my wife and I are seated, on each side of the 1st spot (roughly 20 inches on eache side).

Unfortunnatly I did note have the time to export the graphs (I'll do it later this week), but my first conclusion is rather disapointing: the results with Antimode AND Audyssey XT32 together is not much better than Antimode on its own, or Audyssey on its own.
I was secretly hoping that the conjonction of both calibration would provide a "best of the best" result, it seems that it does'nt work that way...

Graphs to follow so you'll see if you interpret them the same way as I do.
post #63438 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

This has been done before. Was it Igor?  It may be in a different thread.  Jerry's latest graphs were showing what RLO does rather than what DEQ does. I think we are all fairly agreed on what DEQ does aren't we?

I've done some experimenting with REW and DEQ in the past, but didn't post any graphs about it here (was focused on other problems that I had with Audyssey, and thanks to REW Ctrl+S not saving a current set of measurements, but only the selected graph instead, I lost a lot of measurements this way...). But I remember someone posted a few measurements visualizing DEQ (may be Markus?).

What was interesting in my experiments is that DEQ compresses the whole audio frequency range on surrounds, not only the low and high frequencies. I've heard that other multichannel loudness compensation systems are also doing that.
post #63439 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

This has been done before. Was it Igor?  It may be in a different thread.  Jerry's latest graphs were showing what RLO does rather than what DEQ does. I think we are all fairly agreed on what DEQ does aren't we?

I've done some experimenting with REW and DEQ in the past, but didn't post any graphs about it here (was focused on other problems that I had with Audyssey, and thanks to REW Ctrl+S not saving a current set of measurements, but only the selected graph instead, I lost a lot of measurements this way...). But I remember someone posted a few measurements visualizing DEQ (may be Markus?).

What was interesting in my experiments is that DEQ compresses the whole audio frequency range on surrounds, not only the low and high frequencies. I've heard that other multichannel loudness compensation systems are also doing that.

 

Thanks Igor. Sorry to hear of your lost set of measurements - very frustrating. You could be right - maybe it was Markus. I am sure they have been posted somewhere anyway.

post #63440 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morg81 View Post

Hi there!

I had the opportunity to do a few more testing and measures to compare XT32 and Antimode. If you remember my previous posts I had tested:
- no correction,
- Antimode ON,
- XT32 ON.
(the graphs from REW can be found a few pages back in the topic)


Well yesterday afternoon I had one hour on my own at home, and I did the last test I wanted to perform: Antimode AND XT32 together.
I did a 8 spots Audyssey calibration with the Antimode 8033-S turned ON, then ran a couple of tests with REW to check the results with:
- no correction
- Antimode ON alone
- Antimode AND Audyssey XT32 ON

And to test it well I even took the measures on three different spots:
- the center spot, where the Antimode was calibrated and that is the 1st spot for the Audyssey calibration,
- the two spots where my wife and I are seated, on each side of the 1st spot (roughly 20 inches on eache side).

Unfortunnatly I did note have the time to export the graphs (I'll do it later this week), but my first conclusion is rather disapointing: the results with Antimode AND Audyssey XT32 together is not much better than Antimode on its own, or Audyssey on its own.
I was secretly hoping that the conjonction of both calibration would provide a "best of the best" result, it seems that it does'nt work that way...

Graphs to follow so you'll see if you interpret them the same way as I do.

While I don't believe I saved my measurements - I can confirm your findings - In my room Antimode + XT32 did not produce a better result than XT32 on its own - I ended up selling my Antimode and continue to use REW to assist in refining my room's performance..
post #63441 of 70894
Based on the last chart by AustinJerry, it seems the bass level at volume 85dB is much higher than that at volume 80dB+DynE after a frequency (27Hz for him).
Based on the 1st & 2nd chart, with DynEQ switched on, the bass levels are not the same...which means they are not going to give the same feeling perceivable at reference 0dB volume. Assuming with DynEQ switched on all the time, 0dB, -10dB or -15dB volume will not give the same bass level. If it does give the same bass level as 0dB, watching a movie at -40dB will give a monster bass similar to 0dB...which it's not going to happen.
post #63442 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggsantafe View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morg81 View Post

Hi there!

I had the opportunity to do a few more testing and measures to compare XT32 and Antimode. If you remember my previous posts I had tested:
- no correction,
- Antimode ON,
- XT32 ON.
(the graphs from REW can be found a few pages back in the topic)


Well yesterday afternoon I had one hour on my own at home, and I did the last test I wanted to perform: Antimode AND XT32 together.
I did a 8 spots Audyssey calibration with the Antimode 8033-S turned ON, then ran a couple of tests with REW to check the results with:
- no correction
- Antimode ON alone
- Antimode AND Audyssey XT32 ON

And to test it well I even took the measures on three different spots:
- the center spot, where the Antimode was calibrated and that is the 1st spot for the Audyssey calibration,
- the two spots where my wife and I are seated, on each side of the 1st spot (roughly 20 inches on eache side).

Unfortunnatly I did note have the time to export the graphs (I'll do it later this week), but my first conclusion is rather disapointing: the results with Antimode AND Audyssey XT32 together is not much better than Antimode on its own, or Audyssey on its own.
I was secretly hoping that the conjonction of both calibration would provide a "best of the best" result, it seems that it does'nt work that way...

Graphs to follow so you'll see if you interpret them the same way as I do.

While I don't believe I saved my measurements - I can confirm your findings - In my room Antimode + XT32 did not produce a better result than XT32 on its own - I ended up selling my Antimode and continue to use REW to assist in refining my room's performance..

 

I think that if you use both in this way they tend to cancel each other out, so to speak as they each try to get to their own target curve. So if you run, say the AM first and then XT32 second, XT32 will undo what the AM might have done.

 

The only way to use two forms of EQ like this is, IMO, to run Audyssey and then add the other 'on top' without further automated EQ-ing. You can do this with PEQ for example, where you can run Audyssey, get the best result it can deliver and then shape the curve a little more to taste if you wish with a filter or two. If you use the PEQ first, Audyssey will try to undo what you did with the PEQ filters. In all cases, measuring equipment is essential.

 

I do something vaguely similar with my Submersives. Submersives have two 'programs'. Pgm2 applies an approx 3db boost from about 30Hz down. I calibrate with Audyssey in Pgm1 and then switch the Submersives to Pgm2 afterwards, to get that 3dB low-end boost. If I did it the other way around, calibrating in Pgm2 mode, Audyssey would just flatten the 3dB boost and it would be pointless therefore.

post #63443 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylinestar View Post

Based on the last chart by AustinJerry, it seems the bass level at volume 85dB is much higher than that at volume 80dB+DynE after a frequency (27Hz for him).
Based on the 1st & 2nd chart, with DynEQ switched on, the bass levels are not the same...which means they are not going to give the same feeling perceivable at reference 0dB volume. Assuming with DynEQ switched on all the time, 0dB, -10dB or -15dB volume will not give the same bass level. If it does give the same bass level as 0dB, watching a movie at -40dB will give a monster bass similar to 0dB...which it's not going to happen.

 

DEQ gives the same perceived bass. 

 

The perception of the bass notes will be accurate at 0dB.

 

At -40dB, human hearing can barely discern even loud bass notes. 

 

DEQ will boost the level of the bass so that the perception of it is the same as if you were listening at 0dB. It won’t be the same actual level of bass - it is the perceived bass that DEQ aims to restore.  DEQ definitely works ;)

 

g)2.   What is Dynamic EQ?

 

and:

 

http://www.audyssey.com/audio-technology/dynamic-eq


Edited by kbarnes701 - 7/8/13 at 6:16am
post #63444 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
... Yup, the modes themselves are in opposite phase on opposite sides of the room, so cancellation doesn't require that your bass drivers be out of phase. However, in the real world, if playing with the phase knob on one of your subs results in better consistency across your seating, then I ain't gonna be mad at you. And neither will Audyssey.

Thanks for expanding your answers with the nice clarifications, Sanjay.

I especially appreciate guidance on what I can do without  getting others mad.  Now as to the polarity settings on the wife.....wink.gif  

post #63445 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

I've done some experimenting with REW and DEQ in the past, but didn't post any graphs about it here (was focused on other problems that I had with Audyssey, and thanks to REW Ctrl+S not saving a current set of measurements, but only the selected graph instead, I lost a lot of measurements this way...). But I remember someone posted a few measurements visualizing DEQ (may be Markus?).

What was interesting in my experiments is that DEQ compresses the whole audio frequency range on surrounds, not only the low and high frequencies. I've heard that other multichannel loudness compensation systems are also doing that.

I think you're thinking about Dynamic Volume, not DE., and simple volume change. Equalizers aren't compressors, and compressors aren't equalizers. Your master volume control is not a compressor either. It's a volume control.

What DynVol does absolutely includes compression, although if it works the way I think it works, you could not fully replicate it using compression only (there's an element, I think, of what would be called "expansion" in the compressor world, which should allow the system to control overall dynamics with less undesirable impact on the sound than just compressing and using make up gain).

What DEQ does is turn up the surrounds according to its own mystical algorithm (derived from "corrections" made by real film mixers in testing by the Audyssey folks) and of course adjust the bass and treble frequencies to account for the phenomena described in the Fletcher-Munson curves. But certainly some reasonable folks find the DEQ surround volume adjustments unacceptable in their setups, and especially with content like games, which use the surrounds differently from movie mixes.
post #63446 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

I think you're thinking about Dynamic Volume, not DE.
Especially for you, I repeat, I am talking about DEQ, not Dynamic Volume. I use terms precisely and correctly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

Equalizers aren't compressors, and compressors aren't equalizers.
Yes, agree, they are different things, and DEQ is both an Equalizer and a Compressor. The 'dynamic' part (that depends on the input signal level, not the master volume control) is a compressor, simply because it reduces dynamic range of signal and it is the definition of the term 'compression'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

What DEQ does is turn up the surrounds according to its own mystical algorithm
Why would anyone need to call an algorithm 'mystical' if it is known and have a commonly acceptable a name? The only 'mystical' part of it is how exactly it is tuned.
post #63447 of 70894
deleted double post
post #63448 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

I've done some experimenting with REW and DEQ in the past, but didn't post any graphs about it here (was focused on other problems that I had with Audyssey, and thanks to REW Ctrl+S not saving a current set of measurements, but only the selected graph instead, I lost a lot of measurements this way...). But I remember someone posted a few measurements visualizing DEQ (may be Markus?).

What was interesting in my experiments is that DEQ compresses the whole audio frequency range on surrounds, not only the low and high frequencies. I've heard that other multichannel loudness compensation systems are also doing that.

I think you're thinking about Dynamic Volume, not DE., and simple volume change. Equalizers aren't compressors, and compressors aren't equalizers. Your master volume control is not a compressor either. It's a volume control.

What DynVol does absolutely includes compression, although if it works the way I think it works, you could not fully replicate it using compression only (there's an element, I think, of what would be called "expansion" in the compressor world, which should allow the system to control overall dynamics with less undesirable impact on the sound than just compressing and using make up gain).

What DEQ does is turn up the surrounds according to its own mystical algorithm (derived from "corrections" made by real film mixers in testing by the Audyssey folks) and of course adjust the bass and treble frequencies to account for the phenomena described in the Fletcher-Munson curves. But certainly some reasonable folks find the DEQ surround volume adjustments unacceptable in their setups, and especially with content like games, which use the surrounds differently from movie mixes.

 

DEQ does compress though - it has to or it couldn’t work. But that's been done to death not long ago so there's no point re-opening it. ;)  I really just jumped in to say that, to be fair to DEQ, it isn't meant to be a solution for games or music - that's why they provide RLO, simply because with there being no standards for anything other than movies, no system like DEQ can possibly hope to work well with non-movie content. 


Edited by kbarnes701 - 7/8/13 at 10:26am
post #63449 of 70894
This thread has some traffic, so I thought I'd quickly ask to be pointed in the direction of a thread discussing Kal Rubinson's mention in Stereophile of downsampling (to 24/48) by pre-pros when Audyssey is enabled. Wanting to ask some basic questions and since it's not explicitly an Audyssey thing I didn't want to get this thread off-topic.

Appreciated.
post #63450 of 70894
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I think we are all fairly agreed on what DEQ does aren't we?

Oh God. Keith, please don't poke the bear!
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)