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 2160

post #64771 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
 Sorry, I don't agree, SoM. IMO, the Pro kit is for experienced Audyssey users who believe that Audyssey makes a positive difference, and want to eek out that last bit of performance. It is not for disgruntled first-time users, and it certainly isn't a band-aide.
 

I agree with you on this one Jerry. I can't see anything in Pro that will satisfy tvrgeek. I think his best route to audio heaven would be PEQ and REW. This would give him the manual control which is so important to him.

Hey, that's fine guys, there's certainly validity to that. 

 

But the OP asked if Audyssey or Marantz was the problem.  Well, my way of looking at it is that it's kinda both-he needs a better processor-one with more capable Audyssey processing, i. e., XT32.  And if he wants tweaking capability and the best SQ Audyssey has to offer, then he should get a Pro-capable processor and Pro kit.  Frankly I don't think he should waste his time with XT and apparently he'd reached that conclusion himself. 

 

If the OP expresses further interest, we can continue...

post #64772 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
 Sorry, I don't agree, SoM. IMO, the Pro kit is for experienced Audyssey users who believe that Audyssey makes a positive difference, and want to eek out that last bit of performance. It is not for disgruntled first-time users, and it certainly isn't a band-aide.
 

I agree with you on this one Jerry. I can't see anything in Pro that will satisfy tvrgeek. I think his best route to audio heaven would be PEQ and REW. This would give him the manual control which is so important to him.

Hey, that's fine guys, there's certainly validity to that. 

 

But the OP asked if Audyssey or Marantz was the problem.  Well, my way of looking at it is that it's kinda both-he needs a better processor-one with more capable Audyssey processing, i. e., XT32.  And if he wants tweaking capability and the best SQ Audyssey has to offer, then he should get a Pro-capable processor and Pro kit.  Frankly I don't think he should waste his time with XT and apparently he'd reached that conclusion himself. 

 

If the OP expresses further interest, we can continue...

 

Absolutely. I'd go even further and say that everyone should skip directly to XT32 unless funds really don't allow it. It is just so much better. XT32 can be had for under $1,000 if one looks hard for a new Onkyo 818, and I believe there is also a Denon model for similar money that features XT32. Personally, I'd prefer a secondhand unit with XT32 to any brand new unit with XT.

post #64773 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by bao01 View Post

I just meant that if studies show that folks do not really like speakers with a measured flat response but instead prefer a speaker with a perceived flat response, i still do not think speaker manufacturers should build speakers with a perceived flat response (decreasing slope).
Just to clarify what studies have shown.

The largest scale studies were done at Harman: the one that Floyd Toole did involved 42 listeners and 37 loudspeakers over the course of 2 years. His protégé, Sean Olive, conducted research that eventually inlcuded 268 listeners. The subjective double-blind listening tests were combined with objective anechoic measurements to find out why certain speakers were highly preferred while other types of speakers consistently were not.

After all of his and Toole's testing, Olive concluded: "There were clear correlations between listeners’ loudspeaker preferences and a set of acoustic anechoic measurements. The most preferred loudspeakers had the smoothest, flattest, and most extended frequency responses maintained uniformly off axis."

If you place a loudspeaker in a room, its lower frequencies will spread omnidirectionally (like a lantern) while the higher frequencies will beam more directionally (like a flashlight). With all those extra reflections from the room, it's no wonder the lower frequencies have a boosted gain that the higher frequencies won't.

So there is no need to design loudspeakers with a decreasing slope, since that downward tilt will occur naturally in a room.

Some room correction systems (like Audyssey) try to flatten out this naturally occuring room gain, while others (Lyngdorf, Dirac, Anthem, Harman, even the DTS proposal) all have default target curves that slope downward. One is aiming for measured flat while the other are trying for something closer to perceptually flat. You already know which of those is preferred in listening tests.

Worth a read if you're interested in the subject:

Making a Good Loudspeaker - Imaging, Space and Great Sound in Rooms
post #64774 of 70896
I may be new to Audessey, but not to room equalization. I was not a disgruntlement looking for failure when I put out the money for the AV5007. It was using it that turned me sour. I would suspect the Pro kit would do the trick, but $700 just to use the capability I already bought? Don't think so. If they were up front about it, maybe I would have sprung $100 for "pro" software.
Knowing the fine print, I noticed the Onks only give you access to a 7 band graphic eq capability vs DH giving 10. Same on the XT32, so that would not have fixed the issue. I gather user control is a matter of the implementer choice.

New NAD's have Audessey, but they do not mention which flavor. New T758 looks like a nice piece. The Audessey site has the Cambridge logo, but as far as I can see, they have no product using the technology.

For now, just ordered a 55 inch VIsio and a new memory foam movie watching lounge. Parts to build new surrounds came. I will be waiting for the Anthem 310 to come out. Their eq system does allow users to get under the hood. In the mean time, I am back to stereo.
post #64775 of 70896
REW is new to me. Very much the same things I have in my tool kit, but pretty graphics. I'll give it a whirl. Thanks.

There is a healthy difference if views if the response should include leaving in a little room gain and how much roll off in the top is most pleasant. Even Audessey gives two choices. My preference is a little less top end roll-off than is normal, but less than measured flat at listening position. I make use of the room gain when I built the subs so with my low Q boxes they are reasonably flat into the low 30's. I find this about right for most music. Movies seem to vary from weak to absolutely absurd levels of LFE.

EQ is needed for the fixed problems if being inside:Room modes. The top end is within the range of a traditional treble control. Even the choice of a little more bottom end is darn close to most bass controls, so if the automated baseline is flat, traditional tone controls allow the smooth reference to be quite well done. I suspect everyone here would agree a measured perfectly flat at listening position would seem quite unnatural.

If the Anthem can't do the eq, then I am back to vector board. I can model about anything with my Behringer DEQ, but of course if you have worked with one, you will know I would never leave it as part of my system.

Glad to see folks pipping in here on room treatments. They are just as important as the speakers. My front wall has two DIY 5 x 6' absorbers. What it does for imaging is breathtaking. My ceiling is a multi-layer affair facing the cement floor. I really only have two room issues, 54 and 150 Hz. That Audessey did not deal with them was the issue.

Sdurni pretty much sums it up. I try to make my speakers measure as flat as I can on a tall post in my back yard at 1M. Then bring them into the room. Subs I do low Q and use the room gain. I wish ASE would put out an updated volume to the loudspeaker anthologies to pick up the papers from the last 20 years. I am not sure they even still publish the first four.
post #64776 of 70896
Still some misunderstandings running through here...
Quote:
Knowing the fine print, I noticed the Onks only give you access to a 7 band graphic eq capability vs DH giving 10. Same on the XT32, so that would not have fixed the issue. I gather user control is a matter of the implementer choice.

The Graphics EQ functionality is NOT part of Audyssey. You CANNOT adjust the Audyssey target curves, period. If you switch to the Graphic EQ, you have disabled Audyssey and are now doing a pure manual EQ setup. And, again, Audyssey does NOT work with bands, it's an FIR filter with hundreds or thousands of "taps" depending on the flavor. They may visualize the EQ correction as a graphic EQ with bands in the parameter check screen, but that's NOT what it is actually doing.

And the fact that Audyssey's EQ filters are independent of the crossovers should have been known in advance of well, I don't think they were not "up front about it" less then you were expecting Audyssey to be something it is not. Even in the Pro kit, the filters are calculated independent of the crossovers. The only difference (as discussed recently) is that the Pro kit applies a high pass to the speakers filters when you tell it what crossover you are going to use.

And not version of Audyssey EQ's "the system, not the individual speakers" as you noted in your earlier post. Every version of Audyssey EQ's each speaker independently, across its measured operating range.

Audyssey is a "set and forget" solution for calibrating the system and bringing each speaker to a pre-defined target curve, something that anyone can use to bring their system up to a reasonable level of calibrated response (or for the "power user" to add the "icing on the cake" after optimizing the system in advance with speaker positioning, room treatments, etc). It is not a system for a tweaker end user to massage the EQ for each individual speaker. So it's not really a fair criticism of Audyssey, because it is what it is.... but what it is is not what YOU want. You bought it expecting it to be something that it isn't -- that's not Audyssey's fault. It's just not the right tool for what YOU need.
post #64777 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

A good rule of thumb for setting overall loudness can be to get the dialogue where you like it and then let everything else 'fall into place' around it.

This is exactly what I do -- now. I banish my family and guests from the room and find the first dialog in the movie that is speaking, not whispering or shouting, and set the volume for that. Then I go back to the beginning of the movie, and invite everyone in. I realize that I am risking seeing a spoiler, but so far, so good. Naturally, in most cases, it's foolhardy to set the dialog SPL using the dialog level in the previews because, despite the very clear open letter Dolby sent the studios years ago, pointing out the idiocy of mastering the previews at a higher SPL than the film itself, most disks still have previews that are distinctly louder. I fear that, because of this, many films are played back too softly, because people set-and-forget the volume, using the previews to do so. This is unfair to the composers, the filmmakers, and the audience.
post #64778 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post

I may be new to Audessey, but not to room equalization. I was not a disgruntlement looking for failure when I put out the money for the AV5007. It was using it that turned me sour. I would suspect the Pro kit would do the trick, but $700 just to use the capability I already bought? Don't think so. If they were up front about it, maybe I would have sprung $100 for "pro" software.
Knowing the fine print, I noticed the Onks only give you access to a 7 band graphic eq capability vs DH giving 10. Same on the XT32, so that would not have fixed the issue. I gather user control is a matter of the implementer choice.

New NAD's have Audessey, but they do not mention which flavor. New T758 looks like a nice piece. The Audessey site has the Cambridge logo, but as far as I can see, they have no product using the technology.

For now, just ordered a 55 inch VIsio and a new memory foam movie watching lounge. Parts to build new surrounds came. I will be waiting for the Anthem 310 to come out. Their eq system does allow users to get under the hood. In the mean time, I am back to stereo.

 

I'm not sure the Anthem 310 will give you what you want unless the new version of ARC allows for much more control.  I looked into the 300 and it seems pretty similar to Audyssey, it detects the crossover via auto setup.  About the only things you have control of are Room Gain and max freq to EQ.  You can tweak crossovers after the fact like Audyssey.  To me the ARC implementation in the MRX line does not have much more flexibility than Audyssey.

post #64779 of 70896
I guess I need to read the Anthem owners manual again. It looks like you have full access to the eq. Some of the criticisms of it were that it does and it is complicated.

As I posted several times, Audessey or Marantz?

This is all specific to the Marantz AV5007 I had in my possession. I can't speak for any other implementation:
The retailers could not demonstrate the use. They could not answer any questions. Magnolia and Gramophone's fault.
So, on my own with the help from this forum. RTFM.
Audessey was unable to deal with the two main nodes in my room. Their fault. I still had 12 and 15 dB humps at 54 and 150. Clearly audible, easily measured.
Audessey insists on a massive bass boost, shelf of about +10 dB below 60. "Flat" still had the boost. Their fault.
AIdessey looked like it tried to boost the narrow notch caused by the woofer/tweeter offset at the listening position and that made it worse by a couple of dB. Their fault.
Audessey does not tell me what their "target curve" is. I assume it is a slightly reduced treble and a slight deep bass hump.
Audessy seems to think it can eq the sub and main independent of the crossover and think when blended they will remain correct. Not a freeing chance. That darn little thing about phase. They must be dealt with as a system.
In the "verification" screen Marantz provides the 10 band graphic eq representation of the Audessey answer. It is this screen that allows manual adjustment. As it was the Audessey verification before storage, it is logical to believe it is part of their software.
Was this unit defective? Did Marantz screw it up? Don't know.
Marantz does not provide sufficient tools to do do the eq. Their fault
Audessey thinks I need to spend, is it $700, for the kit and more per unit if I actually want to get control. I don't think so.
So, quite correct, this is not the tool or preamp for me. As Audessey has had considerable market success and in most comments I have heard, is preferable to the other main line eq programs. No idea why it proved so incapable in my situation. I got a tube of op amps laying around somewhere....
post #64780 of 70896
I guess I'd just recommend you do by our research ahead of time on whatever you buy since it doesn't seem like you did this time around.
post #64781 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

.. It is not a system for a tweaker end user to massage the EQ for each individual speaker. So it's not really a fair criticism of Audyssey, because it is what it is.... but what it is is not what YOU want. You bought it expecting it to be something that it isn't -- that's not Audyssey's fault. It's just not the right tool for what YOU need.

Just for clarification, as I know you know this bp, the Pro kit does allow one to tweak the EQ curve of individual speakers, remove the MRC dip if desired, allows selection of different base curves, and comes with a more accurate, individually calibrated  mic.  It predictably produces audibly better results. 

 

Pro also allows one to save the measurement file so it can be reloaded and various and sundry tweaks can be applied and tried-all without having to remeasure any mic positions.  For owners of processors (like Onkyo/Integra) that don't  have the Network Save/Load function found on the Denon/Marantz brands this can be a wonderful feature.

 

When one considers that the Denon X4000 plus Pro kit is about $1700, that is considerable bang for the buck in terms of performance and customizability for the avid tweaker. 

 

However, the amount of EQ one can apply in any area of the curve in Pro itself is limited so for big swings in the low end a variety of additional tools may be called for-acoustic treatments, repositioning of subs and speakers, additional PEQ, adjustment of delays, etc.  AJ and Keith are quite well-versed in such techniques for smoothing performance in that area.


Edited by SoundofMind - 9/6/13 at 6:39pm
post #64782 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

If you place a loudspeaker in a room, its lower frequencies will spread omnidirectionally (like a lantern) while the higher frequencies will beam more directionally (like a flashlight). With all those extra reflections from the room, it's no wonder the lower frequencies have a boosted gain that the higher frequencies won't.

So there is no need to design loudspeakers with a decreasing slope, since that downward tilt will occur naturally in a room.

Some room correction systems (like Audyssey) try to flatten out this naturally occuring room gain, while others (Lyngdorf, Dirac, Anthem, Harman, even the DTS proposal) all have default target curves that slope downward. One is aiming for measured flat while the other are trying for something closer to perceptually flat. You already know which of those is preferred in listening tests.

Worth a read if you're interested in the subject:

Making a Good Loudspeaker - Imaging, Space and Great Sound in Rooms
Yep, speakers that measure anechoically flat naturally produce this downward tilt in regular rooms.

Are you sure about the other room correction technologies having default target curves that slope downward though? As I read it, Harman and Lyngdorf's room corrections simply state that their room correction is aimed at a smooth response but leaves natural room gain untouched, i.e. they smooth out the peaks and dips, but don't alter a downward tilt to the response (as opposed to Audyssey which will try to make the line horizontal). Not correcting/flattening room gain is not quite the same as a built-in downward sloping curve though.

To everyone else, yes, if the mixing stages have calibrated flat responses, then you'd achieve a more accurate representation of what the audio mixer intended by having a flat response in your own system. Unfortunately, as the posted graphs sdurani showed a while back, even the professionals don't appear to have complete conformity to any standard. There's another graph floating around for Genelec monitors (very widely used studio monitors for sound engineering) that showed the measured response of a very high number of different studios with Genelec monitors (which are built for flat anechoic response) that show a ridiculously wide variety and inconsistency in the in-room responses.

The reason that Harman (and many of these other companies) opted not to correct for room gain in the lower octaves is simply that we're accustomed to hearing this room gain, whether it's simply for human voices in the room, or any other sounds. High frequencies tend to get absorbed more easily and also decay faster, so the lower frequencies naturally tend to have more overall energy as they tend to hang around longer. Now hanging around to long makes the bass boomy, so within reason, it's good to correct for that, but flattening the frequency response can sound unnatural to the ears.

Take for instance, playing a drum track in the room with a measured flat response vs a tilted response. If you're ever heard a real drumset played in a small venue vs on an outdoor stage unamplified, you know what the kick drum is supposed to sound like. In a small space, t's going to be a percussive BOOM. With a measured flat response in a room, it will sound quite anemic because we're expecting those frequencies to get a lot of room reinforcement in a smaller space, but instead, it will sound like the unamplified drumset on the outdoor stage, and our brains will go, "Huh? That's not right".


Max
post #64783 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post


Audessey was unable to deal with the two main nodes in my room. Their fault. I still had 12 and 15 dB humps at 54 and 150. Clearly audible, easily measured.

 

That is unusual. Audyssey is usually pretty good at bringing down peaks, less so at boosting dips (for good reason as you will know). What was the magnitude of these peaks before Audyssey?  Did Audyssey do anything at all to them?  If not, then something is suspect.

 

 

Quote:
 Audessey does not tell me what their "target curve" is. I assume it is a slightly reduced treble and a slight deep bass hump.

 

Yes they do.

 

a)7.   What are the Audyssey 'Movie' ('Reference') and 'Music' ('Flat') curves?

 

Quote:

 Audessy seems to think it can eq the sub and main independent of the crossover and think when blended they will remain correct. Not a freeing chance. That darn little thing about phase. They must be dealt with as a system.

 

This is a well-known 'issue' with Audyssey.  Because Audyssey never measures the subs and mains together, it can never get the phase response around the XO right, IME. One has to adjust it manually after running Audyssey. This requires some measuring gear/software such as REW or OmniMic etc, but it is an easy procedure to undertake. I agree that it would be better if Audyssey measured the combined sub+main response and then adjusted the EQ around the splice. but it doesn't.

 

 

Quote:

 In the "verification" screen Marantz provides the 10 band graphic eq representation of the Audessey answer. It is this screen that allows manual adjustment. 

 

Others have said this but you seem to keep missing it: Audyssey's EQ curves cannot be manually adjusted after calibration. You can adjust trim levels and distances. That's it. If you enable the Graphic EQ in the AVR then Audyssey is disabled. I suggest you read the Audyssey FAQ all the way through if you want to fully understand how Audyssey works and what it can and cannot do. Many of your gripes with Audyssey are based on a lack of understanding of Audyssey.

 

a)12. What is the relationship, if any, between the Equaliser setting in my Onkyo/Integra AVR and Audyssey?

 

 

Quote:

 Marantz does not provide sufficient tools to do do the eq. Their fault

 

Not really, at least wrt to Audyssey. Marantz cannot provide tools to manually futz with the Audyssey EQ because Audyssey does not make any provision for that. As batpig says, Audyssey is designed to be a simple-to-use EQ system for the majority of people. You are looking for a system that will allow you massive manual control, which I respect totally - but it isn't Audyssey. As Prime says, time spent in reconnaissance is rarely wasted, so it's best to do the research before buying, not after ;)

post #64784 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

A good rule of thumb for setting overall loudness can be to get the dialogue where you like it and then let everything else 'fall into place' around it.

This is exactly what I do -- now. I banish my family and guests from the room and find the first dialog in the movie that is speaking, not whispering or shouting, and set the volume for that. Then I go back to the beginning of the movie, and invite everyone in. I realize that I am risking seeing a spoiler, but so far, so good. Naturally, in most cases, it's foolhardy to set the dialog SPL using the dialog level in the previews because, despite the very clear open letter Dolby sent the studios years ago, pointing out the idiocy of mastering the previews at a higher SPL than the film itself, most disks still have previews that are distinctly louder. I fear that, because of this, many films are played back too softly, because people set-and-forget the volume, using the previews to do so. This is unfair to the composers, the filmmakers, and the audience.

 

Yes, those trailers and previews irritate me too. So many times I have set the system to -6dB before the disc has loaded and then a preview comes on and POW!  I am nearly blown into the next room.

post #64785 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

Yep, speakers that measure anechoically flat naturally produce this downward tilt in regular rooms.

Are you sure about the other room correction technologies having default target curves that slope downward though? As I read it, Harman and Lyngdorf's room corrections simply state that their room correction is aimed at a smooth response but leaves natural room gain untouched, i.e. they smooth out the peaks and dips, but don't alter a downward tilt to the response (as opposed to Audyssey which will try to make the line horizontal). Not correcting/flattening room gain is not quite the same as a built-in downward sloping curve though.
I was being very general in separating room correction systems with a flat response vs non-flat response, but you're right: the latter can itself be separated into systems with downward tilted target curves vs systems that don't take away room gain.

To that end, the Harman room correction system (ARCOS) has a definite down-tlited curve that they attempt to conform the frequency response of the speakers to. You can see the initial one in Sean Olive's room correction comparison, which showed a straight line that dropped 10dB from 20Hz to 20kHz (DTS used the same straight line 10dB-down target in their room correction white paper). The exact shape of the ARCOS curve has been tweaked half a dozen times in the last couple of years of use.

By comparison, the Lyngdorf room correction system (RoomPerfect) uses measured characteristics of your loudspeakers in your room and attempts to smoothen that curve (remove peaks & dips). In their own words: "It was also shown that the power averaged sound pressure of a room holds information about the global phenomena, i.e. damping, and the position of the loudspeaker, i.e. its boundary conditions. Therefore using the power averaged sound pressure of a room as the basis of a room correction system on is a better choice than using radiated power output."
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

There's another graph floating around for Genelec monitors (very widely used studio monitors for sound engineering) that showed the measured response of a very high number of different studios with Genelec monitors (which are built for flat anechoic response) that show a ridiculously wide variety and inconsistency in the in-room responses.
Yup, 25dB of variation in the low frequencies:


post #64786 of 70896
There is another kind of -- probably preferred -- downward tilt that seems to be built into the interaction of listening rooms and some very expensive speakers, with highly touted tweeters, that get great subjective reviews -- a downward tilt only above about 4K Hz or 5K HZ. The curves can end up at about - 7 or - 8 db at 15K, and - 10 dB at 20K. No wonder they sound so sweet, silky and never give offense in a room! This from manufacturers who advertize flat response out into the stratosphere (e.g., 40 Khz)! These hi frequency curves look amazingly like what Audyssey XT Reference does, but the speaker curves can be a little more extreme. I'm certainly not saying there is anything wrong with that, but could it be that one reason these speakers sound so good is that they -- when in a room -- filter out high frequency garbage present in recordings? Something like Audyssey Flat might put the garbage back in. which may be why I now prefer Audyssey Reference, even though I was initially prejudiced against it.

Two quick examples: Stereophile recently compared the Yga Sonja 1.3 to the Vandersteen Treo http://www.stereophile.com/content/yg-acoustics-sonja-13-loudspeaker-measurements. The Yga is so expensive that I repressed the price (circa $100,000 -- can this be right??), and was advertized as "the world's best loudspeaker," or was that the previous model, before they improved it to make it better than the former "world's best?"

When the two speakers got into John Atkinson's listening room, the Vandersteen was down 2.5 dB @ 5K, 5 dB at 10K (compare 2 dB down for the Audyssey XT reference curve) about 7.5 dB at 15K, and about 13 dB @ 20K. The Yg was down about 2.5 dB at 10K, 10 dB at 15 K, and about 18 dB at 20K. They were both pretty flat in an anechoic chamber, but not in JA's room.

Now, both speakers were smooth in the midrange (from about 500 to 4.5K for the Vandersteen, and to 8K for the Yg), and both had several peaks and valleys below about 400, probably thanks, in part, to John's room.
Edited by garygarrison - 9/7/13 at 4:29pm
post #64787 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Worth a read if you're interested in the subject:

Making a Good Loudspeaker - Imaging, Space and Great Sound in Rooms

I will definitely read - now that i am really getting into this crazy hobby smile.gif
thanks !
post #64788 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by bao01 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Worth a read if you're interested in the subject:

Making a Good Loudspeaker - Imaging, Space and Great Sound in Rooms

I will definitely read - now that i am really getting into this crazy hobby smile.gif
thanks !

 

Uh oh!  Another one for the rabbit hole!  :)

post #64789 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Uh oh!  Another one for the rabbit hole!  smile.gif

Welcome....there's always room for more!
post #64790 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Uh oh!  Another one for the rabbit hole!  smile.gif

I took the red pill - i want to see just how deep the hole goes - save me Morpheus !!! eek.gif
post #64791 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by bao01 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Uh oh!  Another one for the rabbit hole!  smile.gif

I took the red pill - i want to see just how deep the hole goes - save me Morpheus !!! eek.gif

 

The answer is out there, Bao, and it's looking for you, and it will find you if you want it to.

post #64792 of 70896
What if I told you, there is no bottom to this hole?
post #64793 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

What if I told you, there is no bottom to this hole?

 

Then he will come out in Australia :)  There are worse places to be...

 

 

"Presently [Alice] began again. ‘I wonder if I shall fall right through the earth! How funny it’ll seem to come out among the people that walk with their heads downward! The Antipathies, I think—’ (she was rather glad there was no one listening, this time, as it didn’t sound at all the right word) ‘—but I shall have to ask them what the name of the country is, you know. Please, Ma’am, is this New Zealand or Australia?’ "

post #64794 of 70896
I have a Denon 3313 right now and no subwoofer. I was thinking of getting a subwoofer, but since I live in an apartment for now I'd have to turn it off after 10 p.m. How will this work? If I calibrate Audyssey with a sub, won't I lose sounds when the subwoofer is turned off? Or can I set the receiver to send those to the mains when the subwoofer isn't on (like how it does now)?
post #64795 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by SubSolar View Post

I have a Denon 3313 right now and no subwoofer. I was thinking of getting a subwoofer, but since I live in an apartment for now I'd have to turn it off after 10 p.m. How will this work? If I calibrate Audyssey with a sub, won't I lose sounds when the subwoofer is turned off? Or can I set the receiver to send those to the mains when the subwoofer isn't on (like how it does now)?
Yes. If you need to turn off the sub, go into Speaker Configuration and set Sub to 'NO'. All the bass that WAS routed to the sub will now go to the Mains.

Or, you could drop even more coin for an Audyssey LFC (Low Frequency Containment) enabled avr.


Max
post #64796 of 70896
Yeah, switching from the 3313 to the X4000 would add LFC and let you run with the sub on all the time, just engage LFC at night.

Alternately, it's super easy to disable the sub in Speaker Config using the web browser interface.
post #64797 of 70896
Running without a subwoofer (after you get one) should work reasonably well, although it won't be ideal.

After you've run Audyssey's calibration with a subwoofer, you can change the front speakers back and forth between Small and Large without invalidating the calibration. However, you will loose the Low Frequency Effects channel, which is always sent to the subwoofer channel if the receiver has detected one.

Turn off the power on the subwoofer itself so that the receiver doesn't know it's missing. If you disable it in the receiver it'll insist that you rerun Audyssey.

Also, I'm assuming you have reasonably capable front speakers, so that Audyssey measures them to have a low enough "f3" frequency that the receiver initially sets them to Large even in the presence of a subwoofer. I don't know what the receiver will do if you set them to Large when it has set them initially to Small.

If you're willing to run without Audyssey, you also can select Direct (plus turn off the subwoofer).
post #64798 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Yeah, switching from the 3313 to the X4000 would add LFC and let you run with the sub on all the time, just engage LFC at night.

Alternately, it's super easy to disable the sub in Speaker Config using the web browser interface.

Another handy option with the 3313 (after buying a sub) could be to engage Dynamic Volume and set it to "Midnight". smile.gif
post #64799 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

After you've run Audyssey's calibration with a subwoofer, you can change the front speakers back and forth between Small and Large without invalidating the calibration. However, you will loose the Low Frequency Effects channel, which is always sent to the subwoofer channel if the receiver has detected one.

Turn off the power on the subwoofer itself so that the receiver doesn't know it's missing. If you disable it in the receiver it'll insist that you rerun Audyssey.

Selden, this last part is incorrect. Audyssey only forces a re-run if you ADD speakers. Disabling the subwoofer in the receiver's Speaker Config will automatically change the front speakers to LARGE and reroute all bass (including LFE) to the FR/FL mains.
post #64800 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Yeah, switching from the 3313 to the X4000 would add LFC and let you run with the sub on all the time, just engage LFC at night.

Alternately, it's super easy to disable the sub in Speaker Config using the web browser interface.

Another handy option with the 3313 (after buying a sub) could be to engage Dynamic Volume and set it to "Midnight". smile.gif

I can tell you from personal experience that's not good enough. Dynamic Volume will prevent the bass from spiking as much as it would otherwise but it will NOT attenuate the bass below the other sounds. The sub is still plenty rumbly even in Midnight mode. And then you restrict the overall dynamics significantly. It MIGHT be enough to prevent neighbors from complaining, but I can tell you that it wasn't sufficient in my situation. If you want to preserve overall dynamics but "attack" the subwoofer's bass production directly, LFC (or lacking that, turning off the subwoofer completely) is much more effective.
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)