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 2152

post #64531 of 70896
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?

 

What Sanjay said.

post #64532 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
 
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
 

 

Roger Dressler should be a good enough source for you Feri. He meets your important criterion of being 'tech savvy' I suspect.  And Sanjay has already mentioned the mysterious absence from the various Loudness Curves of the phenomenon you defend so strongly.

 

But as proof and literature is so important to you, perhaps we could see the proof and literature which supports your view that human hearing sensitivity diminishes more rapidly with sounds from around us than it does with sounds from the front of us?  This would exclude anything from Audyssey for obvious reasons.

post #64533 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

I did not know DEQ adds anything to the highs, I thought it only affected the bass????

Although I'm now beginning to doubt where I read what, I did read (somewhere) that DEQ affected the highs, as well. I sure seem to hear some boost in the highs, although less than in the bass.

I have tried the DEQ used by Audyssey XT, and do not like it. Straight Audyssey multieq XT sounds good to me when running movies. On some CDs and SACDs, Audyssey Flat sounds better, and on others I prefer regular Audyssey. I like all the brightness I can get up to just before the onset of harshness. I was surprised that I liked regular Audyssey better on every movie I tried.
post #64534 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post


Although I'm now beginning to doubt where I read what, I did read (somewhere) that DEQ affected the highs, as well. I sure seem to hear some boost in the highs, although less than in the bass.

I have tried the DEQ used by Audyssey XT, and do not like it. Straight Audyssey multieq XT sounds good to me when running movies. On some CDs and SACDs, Audyssey Flat sounds better, and on others I prefer regular Audyssey. I like all the brightness I can get up to just before the onset of harshness. I was surprised that I liked regular Audyssey better on every movie I tried.

DEQ does indeed boost both the low and high frequencies, but the highs much less so than the lows.

post #64535 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by primetimeguy View Post

DEQ does indeed boost both the low and high frequencies, but the highs much less so than the lows.

So if one has heaps of bass but would like to soften the highs it might be a good idea to turn off DEQ?
post #64536 of 70896
Sure.

watching Pain & Gain right now, tons of bass without DEQ and this is at - 20 from reference, this movie is mixed loud.
post #64537 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post


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)?

You are correct, examining the pre-out measurements is only to observe what correction Audyssey is applying. To assess it's effect, you would need to measure or listen with the room's contribution as well.
post #64538 of 70896
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 have heights and wides, and I listen to all 5.1 and 7.1 sources in Audyssey DSX (except for MC music, of course). This is a highly personal choice, and depends on a number of factors, including listening room acoustics, timbe balance across speakers, etc. As Keith has already expressed, he finds other selections more to his liking. YMMV.
post #64539 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

You are correct, examining the pre-out measurements is only to observe what correction Audyssey is applying. To assess it's effect, you would need to measure or listen with the room's contribution as well.

The in-room measurement for Audyssey Reference ("regular" Audyssey, as opposed to A. Flat) showed the expected decline in the treble, which included an approx. 2 dB dip centered on 2k, a 2 dB decline at 10 K, gently dropping to > 6 dB down at 17K. The interesting thing is that, since the center listening position is off-axis (lines from the tweeters cross in front of the listeners), the net effect, presumably to compensate for this, is that Audyssey Ref. boosts some of the treble compared to (and only compared to) the treble level with the exact same set-up without Audyssey. The net boost starts about 1.5K and extends to 4.5 K, disappears, then resumes between 10K and the top, i.e. the room curve without Audyssey droops above 1.5K with a bump-up between 4.5 and 10, and is generally below the curve made by Audyssey Ref. in the ranges mentioned. The overall curve of A. Ref. is smoother. The upper part of the boost (above 10K) resembles the curve I hand selected (ear selected?) before my Luxman bit the dust, using the Luxman's versatile tone controls (three choices of turnovers for treble, and moderate ranges of boost). Also, very roughly speaking, compared to Audyssey OFF, Audyssey REF in my room, with my speakers, from the center LP, cuts between 550 and 700, boosts between 250 and 450, cuts between 50 and 200, and boosts between 23 and 45. It sounds much better (to my ears) than Audyssey OFF.
Edited by garygarrison - 9/1/13 at 10:38am
post #64540 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

No literature, no proof, ...then it's Preference! I like that! smile.gif
It's true, that's what Audyssey is: Chris' preference sold as reference (a word that has subsequently been scrubbed from their website). And yes, I know you like Chris' preference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

BTW, Sanjay,...how do you comment on side vs. frontal presentations with a headphone, ...ooops, ..."compensated" headphones, whatever that means?
Ooops, later tests done in 1937, 1956 and 2003 used loudspeakers instead of headphones.

Ooops, whatever compensation Fletcher-Munson used resulted in curves that more closely matched with the latest standards (admitted by ISO in those standards).

Ooops, none of the four tests mention side vs frontal differences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Lastly, it is a binary choice, the user has to decide whether to turn DEQ On or OFF. wink.gif
No, you can use DEQ on some material and not on others, AND you can modify the amount of DEQ by using RLO. Users aren't stuck with the binary choice of always leaving it ON or OFF.
post #64541 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Did he? I missed that. Are you sure that there is no surround boost with either one?
THX Loudness Plus does boost surrounds but, as primetimeguy mentioned, not as much as Audyssey DEQ does (and hasn't elicited similar complaints). Both companies also have Tom Holman in common.
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

He mentioned decoupling loudness comp from room correction but I didn't see anything about surround levels (unless you are referencing an older post).
I mentioned the Dolby and THX versions in the same vein that Keith had mentioned recent products allowing DEQ to be used without a MultEQ variant (i.e., decoupling loudness compensation from room correction).
post #64542 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

THX Loudness Plus does boost surrounds but, as primetimeguy mentioned, not as much as Audyssey DEQ does (and hasn't elicited similar complaints). Both companies also have Tom Holman in common.

Lots of studio control rooms behave rather directional (LEDE). When steady state signals (like pink noise) are used for loudness evaluation, the results for equal loudness of front and back speakers will differ. Did Holman/Audyssey ever report the number of listeners and rooms for their listening tests?
post #64543 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

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.
In my old room, DSX kinda' worked with my speaker placement, but having just moved into a new place and hooking up an Onkyo 3010 (and being able to more properly place my speakers), I've been doing critical listening of the three height channel options. I agree with you completely on the difference between DSX and DPL-IIz Height. As far as DTS Neo:X goes, it works... but has the same problem that their previous processing had wherein it has kind of a ringing sound in the processed channels... almost like a residual harshness. I've found myself using DPL-IIz for everything now.
post #64544 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy Anderson View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

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.
In my old room, DSX kinda' worked with my speaker placement, but having just moved into a new place and hooking up an Onkyo 3010 (and being able to more properly place my speakers), I've been doing critical listening of the three height channel options. I agree with you completely on the difference between DSX and DPL-IIz Height. As far as DTS Neo:X goes, it works... but has the same problem that their previous processing had wherein it has kind of a ringing sound in the processed channels... almost like a residual harshness. I've found myself using DPL-IIz for everything now.

 

Yes, I have settled on PLIIz as well. I occasionally switch to DSX to see if my earlier findings still apply, and they always do (not surprisingly).  It's one of those areas that is pure preference I guess, but deriving the Height info from the L & R front channels does seem 'suspect' to me. If you have external amps, I recommend the test I mention above where you can just listen to the Heights alone with DSX. I was really surprised when I did this. Then switch to PLIIz and hear the difference. PLIIz speaker placement for Heights is also far more forgiving than the DSX requirement, and this is a factor in my room too as I simply cannot achieve the DSX placements all that well. This latter may also, of course, colour my judgement on DSX Heights, but I suspect not too much because I just dislike the whole idea of using the front R&L as the source of the Height info.

 

I can’t accommodate wides in my room but I have read that when people who have them have done a similar experiment with DSX-Wide they too have been surprised that it seems that the front L&R content is merely reproduced in the WL & WR but with a slight delay. I am sure that the DSX wide algorithm must be more sophisticated than that, but this is what people have reported.

 

Occasionally I switch the Heights out altogether and just listen in good old 5.1 but after a while I start to feel I am 'missing something' and switch the Heights back on - especially so with action type movies.

post #64545 of 70896
Will pliix work with a wide only setup?
post #64546 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

No literature, no proof, ...then it's Preference! I like that! smile.gif
It's true, that's what Audyssey is: Chris' preference sold as reference (a word that has subsequently been scrubbed from their website). And yes, I know you like Chris' preference.

 

I had to spend some time today going through the FAQ and correcting links to Audyssey or removing them altogether as much of their former useful information has been taken down. As you say, it is perhaps telling that the word Reference no longer features on their site. The MultEQ section of the site is now dumbed down considerably and is really just a marketing tool. Their FAQ section is laughably brief, both in the questions and the answers. It's a good job that would-be Audyssey users have this AVS resource as official documentation on how to get the best out of MultEQ is now more or less non-existent.  Ask Audyssey is still available of course, but without Chris.

post #64547 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmschnur View Post

Will pliix work with a wide only setup?

 

No. To extract the Wide channel information requires a specific DSP. Currently there is a choice of two: Audyssey DSX Wide and DTS Neo:X.

 

PLIIx will still 'work' of course, but it won't create any wide content of course.

 

EDIT: I misunderstood you. See my reply a few posts below.


Edited by kbarnes701 - 9/1/13 at 8:19am
post #64548 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I can’t accommodate wides in my room but I have read that when people who have them have done a similar experiment with DSX-Wide they too have been surprised that it seems that the front L&R content is merely reproduced in the WL & WR but with a slight delay. I am sure that the DSX wide algorithm must be more sophisticated than that, but this is what people have reported.
Agreed. I have tried DSX Wide before and I hate it in certain movies. There are times where dialogue is mixed off center. In this case, the dialogue will be delayed and sound muffled through the Front Wide speaker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmschnur View Post

Will pliix work with a wide only setup?
Do you mean applying DSX Wide with ProLogic IIx for 5.1 to 9.1 transformation? I've never tried that before as my AVR only supports 7.1 processing but others might comment rolleyes.gif.
post #64549 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I had to spend some time today going through the FAQ and correcting links to Audyssey or removing them altogether as much of their former useful information has been taken down. As you say, it is perhaps telling that the word Reference no longer features on their site. The MultEQ section of the site is now dumbed down considerably and is really just a marketing tool. Their FAQ section is laughably brief, both in the questions and the answers. It's a good job that would-be Audyssey users have this AVS resource as official documentation on how to get the best out of MultEQ is now more or less non-existent.  Ask Audyssey is still available of course, but without Chris.

The AVR list may return. And from the Oracle (reference be unto him) on FB, responding to a question about the new site:
Thanks guys, it represents a lot of thinking about how to show the expanded directions that Audyssey is going into. We are having a little debate about the AVR list and are trying to figure out what resources it will need to maintain it up to date.
post #64550 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylinestar View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmschnur View Post

Will pliix work with a wide only setup?
Do you mean applying DSX Wide with ProLogic IIx for 5.1 to 9.1 transformation? I've never tried that before as my AVR only supports 7.1 processing but others might comment rolleyes.gif.

 

Ah - I think I misunderstood his question. Yes, DSX can be applied in conjunction with other DSPs if the AVR allows it. I have used DSX Height, for example, in conjunction with THX Cinema. The only way to proceed is to try these things and see if the result is pleasing. It's preference all the way...

post #64551 of 70896
My preference is "PLIIx Movie + DSX" for my 9.2 Height+Rear. My line of thought is that more & more blu rays are now in 7.1, which means the Rears are discrete. Hence, I use IIx & add DSX for the Height effect. Not sure if my line of thought is logical or not.
post #64552 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I had to spend some time today going through the FAQ and correcting links to Audyssey or removing them altogether as much of their former useful information has been taken down. As you say, it is perhaps telling that the word Reference no longer features on their site. The MultEQ section of the site is now dumbed down considerably and is really just a marketing tool. Their FAQ section is laughably brief, both in the questions and the answers. It's a good job that would-be Audyssey users have this AVS resource as official documentation on how to get the best out of MultEQ is now more or less non-existent.  Ask Audyssey is still available of course, but without Chris.

The AVR list may return. And from the Oracle (reference be unto him) on FB, responding to a question about the new site:
Thanks guys, it represents a lot of thinking about how to show the expanded directions that Audyssey is going into. We are having a little debate about the AVR list and are trying to figure out what resources it will need to maintain it up to date.

 

What a cop-out reply. I manage to maintain a list of Pro-enabled AVRs in the Pro thread and I am one person doing this as a hobby. How much resource is needed to maintain their AVR list? They must have a list of manufacturers who have licensed MultEQ - how hard can it be to use that as a basis to list the models and their MultEQ flavour?

 

"...the expanded directions Audyssey is going into...."  Yeah, this is true. All those gimmicky, crappy things like BassXT, VXT and LFC... 

post #64553 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

What a cop-out reply. I manage to maintain a list of Pro-enabled AVRs in the Pro thread and I am one person doing this as a hobby. How much resource is needed to maintain their AVR list? They must have a list of manufacturers who have licensed MultEQ - how hard can it be to use that as a basis to list the models and their MultEQ flavour?

"...the expanded directions Audyssey is going into...."  Yeah, this is true. All those gimmicky, crappy things like BassXT, VXT and LFC... 

IMO he was referring to the repositioning of the company as a multiplatform solution, particularly for mobile apps/devices, auto, PC etc., with home theater as just one direction for the company. They're clearly no longer just a developer of HT-based room EQ for the audiophile community, but are emphasizing selling their core tech to licensees as their main line of business. Check out the quotes...

It actually reminds me of the Dirac website--if it didn't have their tech paper and RCS suite that can be purchased online.

At least Ask Audyssey and the Pro Installers log-in are still there...but when I checked out the link to 'Find an Installer' through their News story from last year on 'upgrade to MultiEQ Pro', I got a page not found response.

BTW if you look at Related Articles on the Home Theater page, some of Chris K.'s blog posts on speakers etc. can still be found.
Edited by sdrucker - 9/1/13 at 8:53am
post #64554 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

What a cop-out reply. I manage to maintain a list of Pro-enabled AVRs in the Pro thread and I am one person doing this as a hobby. How much resource is needed to maintain their AVR list? They must have a list of manufacturers who have licensed MultEQ - how hard can it be to use that as a basis to list the models and their MultEQ flavour?

"...the expanded directions Audyssey is going into...."  Yeah, this is true. All those gimmicky, crappy things like BassXT, VXT and LFC... 

IMO he was referring to the repositioning of the company as a multiplatform solution, particularly for mobile apps/devices, auto, PC etc., with home theater as just one direction for the company. They're clearly no longer just a developer of HT-based room EQ for the audiophile community, but are emphasizing selling their core tech to licensees as their main line of business. Check out the quotes...
 

 

Yeah. They are morphing into Bose, LOL!

post #64555 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yeah. They are morphing into Bose, LOL!

Just what we need: a brick and mortar Audyssey store in large urban centers, retailing their wireless speakers and SOTA headphones, with a HT room demoing the sound, while showing snazzy charts from ATS, with a commercial of auto licensing partner Jaguar racing down a highway... eek.gif
post #64556 of 70896

I think Audyssey deserves tremendous credit. I am very appreciative of the impressive HT product development over the past few years-a steady march forward in features and SQ: DynEQ/Vol,  DSX and XT32 have really mattered for me, as has Audyssey Pro being available for hobbyists like myself.  

post #64557 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post
 

I think Audyssey deserves tremendous credit. I am very appreciative of the impressive HT product development over the past few years-a steady march forward in features and SQ: DynEQ/Vol,  DSX and XT32 have really mattered for me, as has Audyssey Pro being available for hobbyists like myself.  

 

XT32 is important to me too. But what have they introduced to MultEQ in the last few years?  Anything new since XT32?  LFC is one - by all account is is useless. Not even sure if it is part of MultEQ anyway.

 

Pro is, IMO, a disgrace. Not the product itself but the total lack of interest in it and support of it from Audyssey. They acknowledge bugs but won’t fix them; they refuse to produce documentation; the current software in-program Help is riddled with errors and inaccuracies; and it costs $750, so it is by no means a cheap product. Imagine spending $750 on a new AVR and getting no form of user manual with it and having to rely on the goodwill of people on forums to to explain how it works. 

 

I can understand their desire to expand their business of course. But that can be done without it being detrimental to their existing customers. Or rather, it should be.

post #64558 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Ah - I think I misunderstood his question. Yes, DSX can be applied in conjunction with other DSPs if the AVR allows it. I have used DSX Height, for example, in conjunction with THX Cinema. The only way to proceed is to try these things and see if the result is pleasing. It's preference all the way...
[/quote

This seems a bit better. Thanks.
post #64559 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

I think Audyssey deserves tremendous credit. I am very appreciative of the impressive HT product development over the past few years-a steady march forward in features and SQ: DynEQ/Vol,  DSX and XT32 have really mattered for me, as has Audyssey Pro being available for hobbyists like myself.  

Me too, SOM. It's not the substance that's changed so much as style. And unlike some, pending what I find with Trinnov, XT32 (which I agree is invaluable as the most user-friendly capable RC available to the common AVR user) with Audyssey Pro is still my reference standard for EQing my room. In an Audyssey context, the Target Pro Curve is quite useful for some tweaks around the crossover for my center channel and mains that the distance tweak couldn't improve on their own,as well as taming a drop-put on my mains around 8-10 kHz that added some life to my sound. XT32 would be IMO incomplete without it, as well as DEQ for most movies. Assuming it's still in development, DSX 2 may even help with the acoustics of how surrounds are utilized at less than 'reference' listening.

HST, I think the disappointment is with the company evolving past HT users into a IP and solutions-based licensing entity, and less with what Audyssey MultiEQ itself does. It could be better, given what relatively modest computer RC software or devices can accomplish (JRiver, Dirac RCS, and maybe the newer Antimode) and high-end audiophile (Trinnov Pro) can accomplish and/or being refined to do. And of course the apparent abandonment of bug fixes and development of the Pro software.

But the disappointment is more like the child leaving the 'small town' and becoming a different person in the 'big city'. Just my $0.02.
Edited by sdrucker - 9/1/13 at 11:00am
post #64560 of 70896

I'm really struggling with whether to upgrade to XT32 (Onkyo 818) or try something different (ARC or Trinnov).  My one complaint with Audyssey right now is vocals can seem a bit deep and recessed.  To get around it I use THX Cinema with no Re-EQ when I have that problem, such as last night watching Pain & Gain.  By using THX Cinema no Re-EQ I get rid of both midrange compensation and the high freq roll-off of Audyssey reference curve.  So since two things are changing I'm not sure which one is helping with the vocals.  Anyone have any input on this?  My gut is telling me the midrange comp is the issue for me and I would prefer to not have it which rules out XT32.  I wish there was a cheap way to get Audyssey Pro and XT32 but I don't think there is.  

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)