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 2151

post #64501 of 70905
Do other loudness compensation schemes (like THX LP or Dolby Volume) include surround volume boost as well?

It is, definitely, the most complained about aspect of Dyn EQ. Most of the time it works fine (since the surrounds are usually softer than the fronts) but with real loud aggressive surround content I do notice it being excessive.

I do with Audyssey had separated the two functions (loudness comp and surround boost) so the user could have the benefits of the former without invoking the latter.
post #64502 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post
 
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).

 

Nice post, SoM - with useful links. Thanks.

post #64503 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
 
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?

 

Quite - I was forgetting the alternatives to DEQ, even though I sometimes use them!  As you say, the decoupling from the room correction can sometimes be useful.

 

Yes - Audyssey's false premise wrt to surround sounds has been discussed here many times. Those who believe that Audyssey must always be right, and any disagreement or alternative POV must therefore, ipso fact, be wrong, won't like it but so be it. I recall Roger confirming this and, for me, that is good enough.

post #64504 of 70905
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?

 

My obsession with movies causes me to read numerous reviews, both of the movies themselves and also of the Blurays of the movies. It is often mentioned these days that there is a 'home mix' of this film or that film or a 'near field' mix. Sony have recently started stating in the movie menus that the movie has had a 'near field' mix. Unfortunately,  because I don't really take all that much notice of how the movie is remixed (all my listening is done in the near field anyway, regardless of how they mixed the thing) I can’t point you to any movies that have been specifically remixed for home playback. Other than one - The Bourne Legacy has two Audio options - an option for 7.1 specially remixed for the home and a 5.1 mixed "to reflect the actual theatrical performance" (I paraphrase). AAMOI I prefer the 5.1 mix. I only recall this one because I watched it earlier this week.

 

IDK how common this is, but it is certainly out there. It is interesting that it may invalidate DEQ - I had never thought of it that way before it was mentioned here recently.  If FilmMixer is lurking, he might care to chime in.

post #64505 of 70905
there is a post from filmmixer somewhere that he listed which movies he did that were re done for the home, i want to say it was 25-30% of them.

someone else listed certain studios that always do it. disney was one, want to say lionsgate was another and there was 1 or 2 more.

so reality is it is hit or miss
post #64506 of 70905
But what exactly does than MEAN? Just because the mix is different doesn't necessarily invalidate the need for loudness comp.
post #64507 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Do other loudness compensation schemes (like THX LP or Dolby Volume) include surround volume boost as well?

It is, definitely, the most complained about aspect of Dyn EQ. Most of the time it works fine (since the surrounds are usually softer than the fronts) but with real loud aggressive surround content I do notice it being excessive.

I do wi[s]h Audyssey had separated the two functions (loudness comp and surround boost) so the user could have the benefits of the former without invoking the latter.

 

As Sanjay said earlier - Dolby Volume and THX Loudness Plus do more or less the same thing as DEQ but without the surround boost.  (If Feri feels the need to jump in here to say they don't, well, be advised Feri that I don't GAF what you say about it so you are wasting your virtual breath typing it in). IIRC Denons aren't THX certified so probably don't include THX Loudness Plus, but I have it on a discrete button on my Harmony remote and often use it when I feel that DEQ is overboosting the surrounds.

 

As you rightly point out, overboosted surrounds is the No 1 complaint about DEQ, even though there are those who apparently have never seen the hundreds (thousands?) of posts on the subject.

post #64508 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Because those hearing tests were made with people wearing headphones, thus the results are always showing side presentation and not frontal.biggrin.gif
Only the Fletcher-Munson tests, and that too they used "compensated headphones" (as the ISO 226 described it). In fact, the headphone compensation was so good, that their 1933 curves were a closer match to the current ISO standards than subsequent curves were.
post #64509 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

But what exactly does than MEAN? Just because the mix is different doesn't necessarily invalidate the need for loudness comp.

 

DEQ is based on the assumption that 0dB = Reference level. If the mix deviates from this standard for the 'home mix' then DEQ can’t work properly. I am surmising that a home mix will take into account that people a) listen in the near field and b) listen at levels a fair bit below Reference. Assumption b) implies that the mixer will already have boosted the bass to take the lower listening level into account. If so, then DEQ will be applying a 'double boost' - and wrt to the surrounds, this could definitely be a cause for complaint. Probably most won't complain about an extra boost to the bass :)

 

Of course, since Audyssey used a false premise wrt to the need to boost surrounds because they mistakenly believe that sounds from around us drop off more rapidly, DEQ is already futzing with the surround levels when it shouldn’t be anyway. 

post #64510 of 70905

FilmMixer:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/795421/official-audyssey-thread-faq-in-post-1/49290#post_21547788

 

IIRC he never complained about the surrounds with DEQ.  He was not so happy with what DSX wides did to his mix. 

 

FWIW I enjoy both DEQ and wides for film, neither for MC music.

post #64511 of 70905
Quote:
Only the Fletcher-Munson tests, and that too they used "compensated headphones" (as the ISO 226 described it). In fact, the headphone compensation was so good, that their 1933 curves were a closer match to the current ISO standards than subsequent curves were.

How can you test side vs. frontal presentations with headphones Sanjay! mad.gifmad.gifmad.gifmad.gifmad.gif
post #64512 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

As Sanjay said earlier - Dolby Volume and THX Loudness Plus do more or less the same thing as DEQ but without the surround boost. 

Did he? I missed that. Are you sure that there is no surround boost with either one?

He mentioned decoupling loudness comp from room correction but I didn't see anything about surround levels (unless you are referencing an older post).
post #64513 of 70905

THX Loudness Plus also boosts surrounds, but noticeably less.  But it can be hard to compare because of what the THX modes such as Cinema already do to the surround channels.  

post #64514 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

FilmMixer:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/795421/official-audyssey-thread-faq-in-post-1/49290#post_21547788

IIRC he never complained about the surrounds with DEQ.  He was not so happy with what DSX wides did to his mix. 

FWIW I enjoy both DEQ and wides for film, neither for MC music.

For the record I love Dyn EQ and use it basically 100% of the time. Whatever surround boost it is doing sounds fine to me with most film material, it's only on really aggressive surround content or non-film material (music or video games especially) that it sticks out as being weird. But, as FilmMixer points out in the link above and Roger Dressler has said numerous times, it's because the surrounds are typically SOFTER not because of where they are located.
post #64515 of 70905
Geez, reading the convo around that link at SoM posted... We can basically drop this right now and just go back and reread what was written back then. It's e exact same discussion, with excellent input from Sanjay, Roger Dressler, FilmMixer, Max, rickardl, etc. Shoot, even Pepar was still there! Where did that dude go? tongue.gif
post #64516 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

For the record I love Dyn EQ and use it basically 100% of the time. Whatever surround boost it is doing sounds fine to me with most film material, it's only on really aggressive surround content or non-film material (music or video games especially) that it sticks out as being weird. But, as FilmMixer points out in the link above and Roger Dressler has said numerous times, it's because the surrounds are typically SOFTER not because of where they are located.

Watch out with your love bp, someone's gonna tell you Dyn EQ surround boost is based on a false premise and you will have no other choise than to shy away from AVSForum. tongue.giftongue.giftongue.gif
post #64517 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

As Sanjay said earlier - Dolby Volume and THX Loudness Plus do more or less the same thing as DEQ but without the surround boost. 

Did he? I missed that. Are you sure that there is no surround boost with either one?

He mentioned decoupling loudness comp from room correction but I didn't see anything about surround levels (unless you are referencing an older post).

 

if they do boost surrounds it is much more acceptable. Given that it was Roger D who alerted me to Audyssey's false premise wrt to surround levels and human hearing, I'd be very surprised if Dolby Volume boosted the surrounds at all.

post #64518 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

For the record I love Dyn EQ and use it basically 100% of the time. Whatever surround boost it is doing sounds fine to me with most film material, it's only on really aggressive surround content or non-film material (music or video games especially) that it sticks out as being weird. But, as FilmMixer points out in the link above and Roger Dressler has said numerous times, it's because the surrounds are typically SOFTER not because of where they are located.

Watch out with your love bp, someone's gonna tell you Dyn EQ surround boost is based on a false premise and you will have no other choise than to shy away from AVSForum. tongue.giftongue.giftongue.gif

 

It IS based on a false premise, but that is no reason not to like it or indeed to shy away from AVS. You'll just have to get over it Feri: Audyssey is not perfect after all.

 

This link might help you understand how and why Audyssey got it wrong:

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/795421/official-audyssey-thread-faq-in-post-1/49290#post_21547195

 

See the part where I explain it?  And then the part where Roger Dressler agrees?  Or are you going to tell me that you are right and Roger is wrong? LOL


Edited by kbarnes701 - 8/31/13 at 1:38pm
post #64519 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Geez, reading the convo around that link at SoM posted... We can basically drop this right now and just go back and reread what was written back then. It's e exact same discussion, with excellent input from Sanjay, Roger Dressler, FilmMixer, Max, rickardl, etc. Shoot, even Pepar was still there! Where did that dude go? tongue.gif

 

Jeff is highly active in the Bluray ripping thread and the Hi-res music threads these days.

post #64520 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

It IS based on a false premise, but that is no reason not to like it...

Huh?
post #64521 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

It IS based on a false premise, but that is no reason not to like it...
Huh?
Preference. Despite the surround boost being based on a mistaken premise, if you like how it sounds then you should continue to use it, especially if you find the bass boost part of DEQ useful. This isn't a binary choice, where the user has to decide between DEQ being completely useless vs DEQ being the best thing ever.
post #64522 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Preference. Despite the surround boost being based on a mistaken premise, if you like how it sounds then you should continue to use it, especially if you find the bass boost part of DEQ useful. This isn't a binary choice, where the user has to decide between DEQ being completely useless vs DEQ being the best thing ever.

bp, are you listening? cool.gif

No literature, no proof, ...then it's Preference! I like that! smile.gif

BTW, Sanjay,...how do you comment on side vs. frontal presentations with a headphone, ...ooops, ..."compensated" headphones, whatever that means?

Lastly, it is a binary choice, the user has to decide whether to turn DEQ On or OFF. wink.gif
Edited by mogorf - 8/31/13 at 2:36pm
post #64523 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Nice post, SoM - with useful links. Thanks.

Yes, thanks to both of you. I stand corrected. It must not have been on "Ask Audyssey" that I heard if Audyssey calibration set the trims to -12 it meant that there was no room left for it to execute its frequency compensation. It was a while ago, when I first had Aud. It may have been on one of the other forums I look at, or in a magazine review. Someday I'll re-run Audyssey without using the attenuators, and I expect that the comp will sound and measure substantially the same. Either way, I have to confirm the speaker levels with a SPL meter, since one way we don't know how far below -12 the proper trim is, and the other may not have the levels quite right because the attenuators vary just a bit. Right?

In any case, when switching back and forth between "Audyssey OFF" and "Audyssey" (i.e. Audyssey reference, with the high frequency roll off and the BBC dip), Audyssey sounds a lot better. I ran REW curves from the central listening position, and the curves look a lot better with Audyssey, too. I know Chris K. says that you can't just use a RTA with a central microphone and hope confirm that Audyssey's comp is correct, and that even duplicating Audyssey's 8 mic positions and striking an average won't work well either, but I was curious about what REW and my (relatively inexpensive, but calibrated) measurement mic would say. There is considerable compensation above the Schroeder that I can both hear and see, but it sounds better to me.

I wish we knew more about movie "home mixes" -- does anyone have a ref or a link?
Edited by garygarrison - 8/31/13 at 4:23pm
post #64524 of 70905
Gary, if you wanted to confirm your hypothesis that there is "considerable compensation" above Schroeder, you can use your REW kit to measure the AVR's pre-out connections. Simply measure with Audyssey on and off, and compare the results. This removes the effect of room acoustics. I don't recall from your previous posts whether you have XT or XT32. XT32 does a lot less correction above Schroeder than XT.
post #64525 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

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...

I did not know DEQ adds anything to the highs, I thought it only affected the bass????
post #64526 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Gary, if you wanted to confirm your hypothesis that there is "considerable compensation" above Schroeder, you can use your REW kit to measure the AVR's pre-out connections. Simply measure with Audyssey on and off, and compare the results. This removes the effect of room acoustics. I don't recall from your previous posts whether you have XT or XT32. XT32 does a lot less correction above Schroeder than XT.

Yes, this is one of the biggest improvements of XT32 over XT. As you know, there is a considerable body of opinion, including Geddes and Toole, which says that EQ above Schroeder is bad for various reasons. A couple such reasons are in the post I made recently to Feri (the one which he tried to dismiss as 'not relevant') - the fact that the use of an omnidirectional mic is unrepresentative of the way humans hear the shorter wavelength higher frequencies, and the fact that electronic EQ systems cannot know the dispersion patterns of the speakers used and thus attempt to force both wide dispersion types and narrow dispersion types into the same target curve, not taking into account the way both types will interact very differently with the room. Of course, for the frequencies below Schroeder, being much more omnidirectional in nature, with much, much bigger wavelengths, this isn't so much of an issue and electronic EQ can do a better job in that frequency region.

 

In my view, and I stress this is a personal view, Audyssey 'flavours' below XT32 are far less useful simply because they tend to do 'more harm than good' when trying to EQ above Schroeder. Users with XT, for example, frequently post in this thread that they do not like what XT does for the upper frequencies, whereas one rarely hears this from users of XT32.  If Gary is seeing 'considerable compensation' above Schroeder then he presumably has XT. 

post #64527 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Gary, if you wanted to confirm your hypothesis that there is "considerable compensation" above Schroeder, you can use your REW kit to measure the AVR's pre-out connections. Simply measure with Audyssey on and off, and compare the results. This removes the effect of room acoustics. I don't recall from your previous posts whether you have XT or XT32. XT32 does a lot less correction above Schroeder than XT.

Thanks. I have XT. I compared the REW room curves with Audyssey ON, v.s. Audyssey OFF without touching the mic between times. I realize that room acoustics would be included in this, but the only change between running the curves was switching Audyssey from on to off, and there was a lot of difference above 1K (and, of course, below), with the Audyssey curve being flatter. True, coming out of the pre/pro outputs would let me look at the electronic compensation only, but wouldn't I have difficulty telling which would be flatter in my listening environment (except by ear)?
post #64528 of 70905
Listening Modes with Highs, Wides and Audyssey Q?

Who uses Highs and Wides with Audyssey, and what listening mode do you use when watching movies, and why do you use " " this mode?
post #64529 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Gary, if you wanted to confirm your hypothesis that there is "considerable compensation" above Schroeder, you can use your REW kit to measure the AVR's pre-out connections. Simply measure with Audyssey on and off, and compare the results. This removes the effect of room acoustics. I don't recall from your previous posts whether you have XT or XT32. XT32 does a lot less correction above Schroeder than XT.

Thanks. I have XT. I compared the REW room curves with Audyssey ON, v.s. Audyssey OFF without touching the mic between times. I realize that room acoustics would be included in this, but the only change between running the curves was switching Audyssey from on to off, and there was a lot of difference above 1K (and, of course, below), with the Audyssey curve being flatter. True, coming out of the pre/pro outputs would let me look at the electronic compensation only, but wouldn't I have difficulty telling which would be flatter in my listening environment (except by ear)?

 

One of the problems of with looking at it with the room acoustics 'included' is that we cannot assume that Audyssey's correction is 'perfect'. If you take the measurement from the preouts, you will see the precise electrical correction made by XT when you switch Audyssey in and out. This will give you a better indication of what XT is doing to the signal above Schroeder. Of course, you are right that XT is doing quite a lot up there. If you were able to compare it with XT32, you'd see that XT32 does far less above Schroeder. 

 

You are also correct that doing it the way you did it will be more useful for a subjective analysis of the result of the correction, but I think Jerry and I were talking of the difference between XT and XT32 above Schroeder.

post #64530 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

Listening Modes with Highs, Wides and Audyssey Q?

Who uses Highs and Wides with Audyssey, and what listening mode do you use when watching movies, and why do you use " " this mode?

 

I use Heights. I use Dolby PLIIz. Reason: DSX futzes with the surrounds too much - it lowers their SPL by as much as 3dB and it decorrelates them. PLIIz doesn't. Also PLIIz derives the Height information from the surround channels whereas DSX derives it from the front L & R channels. The latter creates a huge 'wall of sound' and destroys the surround 'bubble' IMO. If you have external amplification it is easy to isolate the Height channels and then compare DSX and PLIIz. I suspect if you did this you would be astonished at the amount of information coming from the Heights when you use DSX. If you add back the centre channel, you can almost dispense with the L & R speakers!  IMO PLIIz gives a nice effect of additional height 'ambience' without ruining the surround bubble the way DSX does. As there is no current standard for Height channels it is pure preference, so YMMV.

 

I haven't enough experience of DTS Neo:X to comment on it.

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)