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 2150

post #64471 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

If anyone's interested, it seems that Audyssey's redone their website. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that you can't search for what flavors of Audyssey are in particular solutions anymore (e.g. XT32).

Also, does anybody know what exactly ATS, a/k/a the Audyssey Tuning System is? Is it a new product that's kind of/sort of aimed at the high end professional or possibly the uber-elite "audiophile" CI down the road? The sample graphs with smoothing parameters on the plot caught my attention, along with the pretty interface. tongue.gif

The link is http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/ats

I notice that there is no longer a studio or cinema category either.ATS looks like it has the acoustic measurement collection capability and fine tuning adjustability that would make it suitable for a high-end HT solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

It is primarily for designers and, in particular, automobile audio designers.  I saw a demo of it a while back and would love to get my hands on it but, so far, not.

Was there a listening demo as well?
post #64472 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenLansing View Post

I notice that there is no longer a studio or cinema category either.ATS looks like it has the acoustic measurement collection capability and fine tuning adjustability that would make it suitable for a high-end HT solution.
Was there a listening demo as well?

Hey Feri - as the closest thing we have to a High Priest of Audyssey, can you ask The Oracle Himself (Chris K.) in the usual Innernet place (FB) and report back?
post #64473 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenLansing View Post

Was there a listening demo as well?

No.  it was at a trade-show booth display.

post #64474 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

That is incorrect. No matter how you set the trims before calibration, it's irrelevant because Audyssey ignores all AVR settings when it does the calibration.

I was not referring to setting the trims, and in my case there was no AVR!smile.gif I agree that "no matter how you set the trims before calibration it's irrelevant because Audyssey ignores all AVR settings when it does the calibration." What I did was I temporarily installed in-line attenuators (12 dB) between a preamp/processor and some separate power amps, ran Audyssey, then removed the attenuators. The intention and the effect was equivalent to temporarily reducing the efficiency of the speakers, so Audyssey would have room to do its frequency response work (see below). Audyssey (contained in the preamp) had no way of "knowing" about this. Now that I know that the poster does not have separates, I realize that he can't do this, but wonder if his AVR has a "preamp out" and "amp in" analog processor loop. My old Luxman did.

Somewhere in "Ask Audyssey" the problem of too efficient speakers is addressed, and, unless I hallucinated it, Audyssey cautioned that any channel set -- by Audyssey, in calibration -- to -12 (potentially lower than -12) meant that the frequency correction was not applied. In most systems in which this happens the culprit is a subwoofer with its own volume control (on the box, not in the AVR or the preamp/processor) which is set too high. Audyssey says these must be turned down until the calibration no longer results in -12 (or even lower, but, naturally, unseen). In a few systems -- like mine -- with very efficient speakers like Klipsch, JBL. etc. the mains and center can also have this problem.
post #64475 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

If anyone's interested, it seems that Audyssey's redone their website. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that you can't search for what flavors of Audyssey are in particular solutions anymore (e.g. XT32).

Also, does anybody know what exactly ATS, a/k/a the Audyssey Tuning System is? Is it a new product that's kind of/sort of aimed at the high end professional or possibly the uber-elite "audiophile" CI down the road? The sample graphs with smoothing parameters on the plot caught my attention, along with the pretty interface. tongue.gif

The link is http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/ats

Found it.

http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/multeq/flavors
post #64476 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

For a rabid Audyssey supporter, you're getting into very dangerous ground here, Feri.

Many people (including Geddes and Toole) believe that EQ-ing above Schroeder at all is not a good thing. Indeed, Audyssey didn't even seem to realise this themselves until XT32 came along, which actually doesn’t do all that much above Schroeder, unlike other versions of MultEQ which apply substantial correction there.

And to mention human hearing in the same breath as auto-EQ is also taking you right out there on to that thin ice.  Audyssey uses an omnidirectional mic as you know. Unfortunately, human beings do not have omnidirectional hearing. We have two ears and one head in between them, and this gives rise to Head Related Transfer Function (HRTF). Sounds above Schroeder coming at the mic from the left and right sides are heard the same from both directions. But sounds coming at a human being from the left are not heard the same in both ears because the head shadows the sound going to the right ear. This simple fact calls into question the entire basis of electronic EQ above Schroeder (using an omnidirectional mic). EQ-ing to the target curve is based on what the mic hears, not what human ears hear and as these are two very different things thanks to HRTF then one might question even using Audyssey at all other than for the bass frequencies. And wrt to the bass frequencies, a well-treated room plus some judicious use of PEQ can do all that Audyssey does, and more. (EDIT: but it does have a fairly steep learning curve, does require knowledge of how to use something like REW and does require a lot more effort than running auto-EQ, I will grant you).

Like I've said to you before, Audyssey can be (and for the majority it is) a useful tool, but it is not audio nirvana.

Nice try Keith, but this post has nothing to do with the on-going discussion. biggrin.giftongue.gif

 

And your point is....???

post #64477 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
 
Quote:
1. Should one have the possibility to acoustically treat the room the less Audyssey MultEQ may be needed or can even be turned off,...but there is one condition. One must always listen to movie soundtracks at 0 dB reference level, although having MultEQ on won't really hurt! smile.gif

Not at all true. It is perfectly possible to EQ a room for any SPL below Reference that one chooses to without the use of Audyssey. If you routinely listen, as I do for example, at around -6dB, then all you need to do is create the EQ curve that you need for that SPL. If you happen to listen at some other level, say at night or whatever, it is easily possible to store a dozen different EQ curves in a PEQ, for use at any other SPL.

Keith, why on Earth would anybody bother to do such a silly thing with a PEQ when DEQ is there to do it much better. I feel a great deal of overthinking stuff here!!!
Quote:
And as there are now AVRs which allow the use of DEQ even with Audyssey turned off, one could also run Audyssey, to get trims and delays set, and then turn Audyssey off but leave DEQ on.

Silly again, ...DEQ is supposed to work in conjunction with MultEQ, unless otherwise reference level and MV settings below reference level will be all over the map. Just like it is with music recordings. Go figure!
Quote:
It may come as a surprise or a shock, Feri, but people were EQing rooms before Audyssey was ever invented (and are still managing nicely in Pro studios the world over without the use of Audyssey).

Are you talking to me? tongue.gif
Quote:
2. Should one not be able to listen to movies at 0 dB reference level DEQ is a must. Should one turn it off doesn't mean lack of understanding how DEQ works, but how our ears work and especially why (level dependent frequency depenency). biggrin.gif

It isn’t at all a 'must' but it is indeed a convenience. It is pretty easy to apply a little bass boost when you need to turn down the MV. Remember that the thing DEQ does to the surround levels was based on a false premise (that our hearing 'falls off' with sounds from behind as their level decreases) so DEQ isn’t really needed there anyway. The surround boost applied by DEQ is one of the things people complain of most frequently in this thread.

Who told you that DEQ is based on a false premise. Please don't believe everything just coz it's written on Da Innernet. You gotta be better than that! smile.gif BTW, I never complained!
Quote:
There is also the issue raised in the last day or so - that so many BDs are now remastered for home use that DEQ may actually be taking the listener AWAY from Reference. Not to mention the fact that DEQ does not monitor changes to trim level (as Chris mistakenly used to believe) so anyone who runs their sub a little hot and who also runs DEQ is in unknown territory anyway.

Another sure thing you immediately believed coz it's on the Internet, eh? Come on Buddy! smile.gif As to DEQ monitoring the changes as Chris admitted we either gotta live with it or refrain from changing trims while watching movies. Problem solved. Up to you! smile.gif
 
Quote:
3. Should one have a desire to use their HT systems with MultEQ and DEQ for music, ...well, there are a lot more things to consider.


DEQ is an awful kludge for music because of the lack of standards. It might make music sound better, it might make it sound worse. No way to know.

Please don't forget that YOU do not listen to music in your HT room, so you are not supposed to comment on this issue, eh? smile.gif

 
Quote:
4. Should one have a desire to tweak settings or in other words to enter Preference Land it's always A-OK once it is started from reference.

Yes, Chris, sorry, Feri, that is a mantra we have heard so often. The fact is most people apply preference one way or another, and of course there is nothing at all wrong with that.

Should you not get the meaning of starting from reference is a pity, but up to you. smile.gif

 

As with most of your posts these days, there is so much misinformation in this latest one that I just can't be bothered to pick through it line by line.  The most salient parts are:

 

Calling PEQ "silly" shows your utter lack of understanding.  My point was that PEQ + treated room can replace Audyssey - albeit with more effort needed than hitting 'enter'.

 

DEQ might be intended to work with MultEQ but the fact remains you can now use it without.  

 

The fact that human hearing does not fall off when hearing diminished sounds from behind is just that - a fact. Why not PM Roger Dressler and ask him to explain it to you -  he more or less invented Dolby 5.1 and I am guessing he knows more about this than you do. So yes, DEQ is at least partly based in that particular false premise. It may be why so many people complain about what DEQ does to their surrounds.

 

I'll tell you one thing that is on the Internet that I definitely don't believe: 99% of your posts ;)

 

You are in love with Audyssey, Feri. And, as they say, love is blind.

post #64478 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

I listen to mostly music and I will easily agree with this statement, DEQ is a mixed bag when it comes to the mixing standards with music for sure. Even on the same disc sometimes only some tracks would benefit from DEQ while others sounded just plain terrible. I have since really just skipped DEQ altogether and rarely engage it period. For music in most cases it just did more harm than good.

Hi beast, care to expand a tad bit on how it is better for music without DEQ than it is with DEQ? What do you experience with DEQ off that you feel is better? What MV level(s) are you typically listening to music?

 

ROFLMAO. That is SO funny :)  

post #64479 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post

Mixed bag is an understatement! however I've found a my consistent best of both work around that tends to suit me and my taste , with music I use Dynamic EQ off set to 5, I set Audyssey bypass my mains ( as they are optimally placed and I run them full range) ) and Audyssey all else. this is my across the board setting for multi/ch sacd which can be staggering in scale and dynamics. For combo HT/Music setups correcting only the center surrounds and subs is a great option and should be explored before discounting it all together. wink.gif

Well, this is a setting usually never recommended, but if you like it stick with it. It's your system and who am I to talk you out of it, eh? Preference rules!!!!!!cool.gifwink.gifsmile.gif

 

Who indeed!  :)
post #64480 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by D Bone View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

DEQ is there to "trick" the ear when reference level is altered, and as such should have nothing to do with Dolby PL, or DTS Neo, or whatever processings we may find in our AVRs to make a 2 ch stereo recording into a multi-channel enjoyment.

That Feri, was the entire reason why I only had a few hours sleep last night. Whatever DEQ does to either the frequency response or SPL, or heck both, during PLII Music processing of 2 channel signals is down right hideous. The problem only exists when DEQ is enabled and immediately disappears when its disabled. It's not an 'Audyssey' issue as MultEQ XT by itself doesn't cause the artifacts, just DEQ. I like, or did like anyway, DEQ but the lack of more granularity in its settings is its ultimate defect..........If a user could keep the bass boost and trim only the surround enhancements or vice versa, that would be a great place to start. I know all about RLO, but it is an all or nothing setting that effects both the bass boost and the surround enhancement.............I know, I know reference vs preference, but in the end preference will always win, after all, who wants to hate the way their system sounds even though it is setup "correctly" according to someone else's definition of reference. Not me, that's for sure. wink.gif

 

You will never convince Feri that Audyssey is not the answer to every acoustic problem, in every possible situation, with every kind of content and every combination of equipment. It will never happen because Feri suffers from KSBP (Kyriakakis Syndrome By Proxy) and, sadly, it is incurable.
post #64481 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by D Bone View Post

That Feri, was the entire reason why I only had a few hours sleep last night. Whatever DEQ does to either the frequency response or SPL, or heck both, during PLII Music processing of 2 channel signals is down right hideous. The problem only exists when DEQ is enabled and immediately disappears when its disabled. It's not an 'Audyssey' issue as MultEQ XT by itself doesn't cause the artifacts, just DEQ. I like, or did like anyway, DEQ but the lack of more granularity in its settings is its ultimate defect..........If a user could keep the bass boost and trim only the surround enhancements or vice versa, that would be a great place to start. I know all about RLO, but it is an all or nothing setting that effects both the bass boost and the surround enhancement.............I know, I know reference vs preference, but in the end preference will always win, after all, who wants to hate the way their system sounds even though it is setup "correctly" according to someone else's definition of reference. Not me, that's for sure. wink.gif

D Bone, ...I think your case with DEQ causing artifacts needs further investigations,...I think it can be generally accepeed that DEQ is not made to make things worse, ...but if it does (like in your case) it needs a much closer scrutiny. Care to draft more details on your case?

 

Maybe he has a blown tweeter?
post #64482 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by D Bone View Post

The artifacts that I heard could be described as compressed noise when PLII Music was steering sounds to the surround speakers. It wasn't all sounds, but rather a specific frequency that I first heard on a Pink song, not sure what it's called, but I think it's U and your hand.........Maybe it was a guitar? I'm not sure. It wasn't obvious on every song, but once I heard it, there was no unhearing it. I believe the artifacts to be the end result of PLII Music's processing to create ambiance, followed by DEQ doing whatever the heck it does to completely make the offending sounds stand out like a sore thumb.

 

Not everyone is capable of understanding: DEQ does not work very well on music content

post #64483 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by D Bone View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

My recommendation: run Audyssey again after reading the FAQ to the letter! smile.gif

LOL How did I know you'd say that..........Gotta be my fault.rolleyes.gif I have read the FAQ, used its recommendations as well as a chicken's foot, a rabbit's foot and all the usual voodoo required to get Audyssey's results perfect.

 

It doesn't matter how many times you run Audyssey (assuming, as I do, that you are doing it properly). DEQ  doesn't work very well with music, for reasons we all (all except one) know very well. It can't can it - because of the absence of standards for music mixing. As DEQ works to 'Reference' level, it absolutely requires a known reference level to work to. And in music, that is absent.
 
With some, if you dislike something Audyssey does, it has to be operator error, that's all. Ignore it.

Edited by kbarnes701 - 8/31/13 at 3:30am
post #64484 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by D Bone View Post

LOL How did I know you'd say that..........Gotta be my fault.rolleyes.gif I have read the FAQ, used its recommendations as well as a chicken's foot, a rabbit's foot and all the usual voodoo required to get Audyssey's results perfect.

I think you left out the ritual sacrifices....smile.gif

 

I can think of a perfect candidate :D

post #64485 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

That is incorrect. No matter how you set the trims before calibration, it's irrelevant because Audyssey ignores all AVR settings when it does the calibration.

I was not referring to setting the trims, and in my case there was no AVR!smile.gif I agree that "no matter how you set the trims before calibration it's irrelevant because Audyssey ignores all AVR settings when it does the calibration." What I did was I temporarily installed in-line attenuators (12 dB) between a preamp/processor and some separate power amps, ran Audyssey, then removed the attenuators. The intention and the effect was equivalent to temporarily reducing the efficiency of the speakers, so Audyssey would have room to do its frequency response work (see below). Audyssey (contained in the preamp) had no way of "knowing" about this. Now that I know that the poster does not have separates, I realize that he can't do this, but wonder if his AVR has a "preamp out" and "amp in" analog processor loop. My old Luxman did.

Somewhere in "Ask Audyssey" the problem of too efficient speakers is addressed, and, unless I hallucinated it, Audyssey cautioned that any channel set -- by Audyssey, in calibration -- to -12 (potentially lower than -12) meant that the frequency correction was not applied. In most systems in which this happens the culprit is a subwoofer with its own volume control (on the box, not in the AVR or the preamp/processor) which is set too high. Audyssey says these must be turned down until the calibration no longer results in -12 (or even lower, but, naturally, unseen). In a few systems -- like mine -- with very efficient speakers like Klipsch, JBL. etc. the mains and center can also have this problem.

 

Please accept my apologies for misunderstanding you.  I would have thought that if you inserted attenuators prior to running Audyssey then they should be left there afterwards. 

 

WRT to no correction being applied if the trims are maxed out, I’d appreciate seeing a link to the Audyssey information on that.

post #64486 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post


I was not referring to setting the trims, and in my case there was no AVR!smile.gif I agree that "no matter how you set the trims before calibration it's irrelevant because Audyssey ignores all AVR settings when it does the calibration." What I did was I temporarily installed in-line attenuators (12 dB) between a preamp/processor and some separate power amps, ran Audyssey, then removed the attenuators. The intention and the effect was equivalent to temporarily reducing the efficiency of the speakers, so Audyssey would have room to do its frequency response work (see below). Audyssey (contained in the preamp) had no way of "knowing" about this. Now that I know that the poster does not have separates, I realize that he can't do this, but wonder if his AVR has a "preamp out" and "amp in" analog processor loop. My old Luxman did.

Somewhere in "Ask Audyssey" the problem of too efficient speakers is addressed, and, unless I hallucinated it, Audyssey cautioned that any channel set -- by Audyssey, in calibration -- to -12 (potentially lower than -12) meant that the frequency correction was not applied. In most systems in which this happens the culprit is a subwoofer with its own volume control (on the box, not in the AVR or the preamp/processor) which is set too high. Audyssey says these must be turned down until the calibration no longer results in -12 (or even lower, but, naturally, unseen). In a few systems -- like mine -- with very efficient speakers like Klipsch, JBL. etc. the mains and center can also have this problem.

The maxed neg trim in the processor discussion has occurred many times over many years on this thread.  As I stated before, maxed trim does not invalidate the EQ but rather simply means we don't know what the what the proper trim should be for that channel.  Here's a direct quote by Chris on the topic:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/795421/official-audyssey-thread-faq-in-post-1/22290#post_17879067

 

"The filter calculation is independent of the trim calculation and setting. So, the filters are created to have unity gain (as much as possible) and then the trim setting is calculated to try and match the level of the speakers and the sub."

 

For purposes of this discussion I direct you to the full OP which sets the context:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/795421/official-audyssey-thread-faq-in-post-1/22260#post_17874951

and there is pertinent info in this link contained in the post::

http://www.avsforum.com/t/795421/official-audyssey-thread-faq-in-post-1/19440#post_17337488

as 2 solutions are successfully applied, a separate amp with a gain knob and in-line attenuators (that are left in place).

post #64487 of 70896
I'm looking for a set of dueling pistols so you two guys can settle this properly biggrin.gif
post #64488 of 70896

^ No pistols needed. But dueling SPL meters might be in order. :D

 

There have been some epic battles in this thread but I don't see a fight here, just what I hope is a collegial and fruitful technical discussion.

 

though garygarrison is a newcomer here, he obviously has spent some time in trying to understand how to use Audyssey to get the most out of his system and understands many fine points of calibration.  However his understanding of the consequences of a maxed neg processor channel trim is not one familiar to Keith and myself. That's why we're asking for an authoritative reference. I've posted my searches and links to support my take on this. 

post #64489 of 70896
Dueling SPL meters are acceptable and no worries just making light of things smile.gif
Actually because of the DEQ discussion I'm experimenting with my RLO settings.
post #64490 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Hi beast, care to expand a tad bit on how it is better for music without DEQ than it is with DEQ? What do you experience with DEQ off that you feel is better? What MV level(s) are you typically listening to music?

Yea, so the post where you quoted me and then wrote the above? That was pretty much my explanation. DEQ on some tracks can make the bass overbearing, or add too much to the highs, and then on others where the low end might have already been lacking it could help perhaps, but most of the time in that case, it still adds too much to the top end and kills the sound so, therefore I just leave it alone...
post #64491 of 70896
The reference level can make a big difference for DEQ and music; however I usually leave it off .
post #64492 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

DEQ might be intended to work with MultEQ but the fact remains you can now use it without.
Not to mention other solutions, like THX Loudness Plus or Dolby Volume. It's useful when loudness compensation is decoupled from room correction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

The fact that human hearing does not fall off when hearing diminished sounds from behind is just that - a fact.
Yup, there is nothing in psychoacoustic literature that supports Audyssey's belief that sounds around us fall off at a faster rate than sounds in front of us. Hasn't this been discussed multiple times, just in this thread alone?
post #64493 of 70896
What I want to know if there's any validity to the sudden rumor that BDs are remixed differently for home? I have never heard this before, is there any actual evidence?
post #64494 of 70896
Here's an update on my findings, for those who are interested smile.gif

I haven't had time to change my configuration because I've come home from work every night at about 9pm, and today I wanted to enjoy some music and movies with my now 1 week old brand-new set (AV8801 & MM8077). However, I've made some observations.

I'm not a rookie when it comes to the features of the AV8801 or Audyssey; everything's very familiar because I got to know the Onyko 818 with Audyssey XT32 very well during the few weeks I used it. I read a lot and tried all the different settings, because that's my hobby, so when I configured the AV8801, it was really a matter of minutes because I knew exactly what I had to do, and also after 1 week I feel the same about it.

My issue was/is that I can listen at a much higher volume without Audyssey than with Audyssey.

How loud is loud? My living room is 24m^2 and I have neighbours. Lound for me is between 80dB and 85 tops. I don't know whether that's generally considered to be loud listening in a home environment, but it's what I use when I want it loud. With regards to the volume setting on the AV, that's around -16dB. I've disabled Dynamic EQ for music again due to the lack of reference level for music records. For movies, I turn it on at set the RLO to 0dB.

Anyhow - took my SPL meter and measured while listening with and without Audyssey. The sound kept the same volume at around 82dB. However, with Audyssey, it "felt" a lot louder. My speakers are very bass heavy, at least in combination with my room. So with Audyssey off, the volume is defined by the bass, because it's too strong and the highs are more subdued. With Audyssey, the volume is defined by the now much louder voices (the difference is huge). The overall volume is the same, but the much louder voices with Audyssey are more audible than the lounder bass without Audyssey. So what happened a few days ago was this: I listened without Audyssey and kept turning up the volume. I probably went over 90dB. When I went back to Audyssey, the music was simply much too loud for my room, that's why it sounded terrible.

I don't know if that makes sense, I'm not used to describing audio, and English is a distant second language. So yes, with a flat frequency response (at least as good as it gets in my room), music feels louder because the voices are a lot stronger, and I have to get used to less bass. I have changed the front speakers from large to small now, because with the Onk I remembered that right after calibration the sound was not satisfactory, because my speakers simply don't have the same punch as the sub, so setting the crossover to 80Hz changed a lot, and I've now done this in my current setup, too. I also noticed that one some records like Junip, the bass is still very strong - with the Maria Mena album I used, bass seems indeed lacking in comparison to the probably much too strong bass in source direct mode. So, bass is there if it's intended to be there ;-)

Sound quality (with Audyssey) is excellent if I stay under 85dB. Not excellent like in a treated room, of course, but for my room it's really excellent. I know my problem baffled some, and I don't know if my speakers are simply much too bass heavy or only in combination with my room, but that's the reason for it all. With Audyssey the sound is very, very different, much higher voices, much less bass, and that's why I could listen much louder without, but it was really too loud. I don't want to know what my neighbors think ;-)

One other thing, changing the input level massively changes the sound characteristic. So yes, if I set the digital input level to the max (12 or 15 dB), it sounds a lot more like in source direct mode, i.e. there's a lot more bass now. I don't understand why it is like that because in theory I believe it shouldn't change the sound (apart from making it louder), but it does. I've set it to 0 again though. I'll listen to more records before deciding whether I globally need more bass or not.

Of course I'll still strive to get better sound out of my room, but I have to say, with Audyssey engaged and at under 85dB at my listening position, it sounds really, really good! (Not knowing anything better, of course).

And really, an off-centric TV isn't THAT bad! ;-)
post #64495 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by tombeck View Post

...One other thing, changing the input level massively changes the sound characteristic. So yes, if I set the digital input level to the max (12 or 15 dB), it sounds a lot more like in source direct mode, i.e. there's a lot more bass now. I don't understand why it is like that because in theory I believe it shouldn't change the sound (apart from making it louder), but it does. I've set it to 0 again though. I'll listen to more records before deciding whether I globally need more bass or not....

That's great, Tom.  What you describe is a good, expected result with Audyssey-it is effectively and audibly taming the unwanted bass peaks in the room.

 

I excerpted the part above because it makes sense to me IF DEQ is ON. 

 

Here's what happens. With DEQ OFF, the input level will affect the loudness at any given MV setting.  IOW your meter should read pretty much the same at input level=0 (default) and MV=-15 as it would with input level=+15 and MV turned down to -30.  However with DEQ ON, and RLO=0, in the latter case DEQ thinks you are listening at MV=-30 and boosts the bass much more than it would in the former case of MV=-15. 

post #64496 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

That's great, Tom.  What you describe is a good, expected result with Audyssey-it is effectively and audibly taming the unwanted bass peaks in the room.

I excerpted the part above because it makes sense to me IF DEQ is ON. 

Here's what happens. With DEQ OFF, the input level will affect the loudness at any given MV setting.  IOW your meter should read pretty much the same at input level=0 (default) and MV=-15 as it would with input level=+15 and MV turned down to -30.  However with DEQ ON, and RLO=0, in the latter case DEQ thinks you are listening at MV=-30 and boosts the bass much more than it would in the former case of MV=-15. 

Excellent explanation, makes perfect sense. Thanks a lot!
post #64497 of 70896
rolleyes.gif
Quote:
Yup, there is nothing in psychoacoustic literature that supports Audyssey's belief that sounds around us fall off at a faster rate than sounds in front of us. Hasn't this been discussed multiple times, just in this thread alone?

Sanjay,...and when this recurring issue pops-up you always chime with your denial. Do you happen to have a link to literature that supports your position. It would really be nice to put an end to this topic, ...and maybe Keith could include it in the FAQ (if it's not there already) smile.gif Thanks.
post #64498 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

What I want to know if there's any validity to the sudden rumor that BDs are remixed differently for home? I have never heard this before, is there any actual evidence?

There is some recent talk of this. I would link, but on phone. It's in the avs review of the latest OZ. the engineer came in and explained he made a near field mix for the home release if I remember right.
post #64499 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Sanjay,...and when this recurring issue pops-up you always chime with your denial. Do you happen to have a link to literature that supports your position.
Rather than asking me to prove a negative ("denial"), take a look at equal loudness curves throughout history (Fletcher & Munson in 1933, Churcher & King in 1937, Robinson & Dadson in 1956, and the most recent and comprehensive ISO 226 in 2003) and see if you can find one that shows a different fall off rate for sounds around us vs sounds in front of us. If you can't find it, then ask yourself why none of the research makes that distinction.

One of the previous times this discussion came up, a couple of posters in this thread did try playing the same signal at the same level in all the speakers; when they lowered the master volume, they reported no level difference between sounds coming from in front of them vs sounds coming from around them.

With both those in mind, it is easy to see what the flat was in DEQ and why it led to complaints of overboosted surrounds. Unlike you, my reflex is not to automatically believe everything Audyssey says until proven otherwise. After all, this is the Audio Video Science forum, not Audio Video Faith forum.
post #64500 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Rather than asking me to prove a negative ("denial"), take a look at equal loudness curves throughout history (Fletcher & Munson in 1933, Churcher & King in 1937, Robinson & Dadson in 1956, and the most recent and comprehensive ISO 226 in 2003) and see if you can find one that shows a different fall off rate for sounds around us vs sounds in front of us. If you can't find it, then ask yourself why none of the research makes that distinction.


Because those hearing tests were made with people wearing headphones, thus the results are always showing side presentation and not frontal.biggrin.gif
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)