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 2165

Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf

Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949

You need to look at the bright side, he's just pointing out one of the issues with Audyssey's inferior methods

Care to expand on the bolded part of your comment? Just curious like cat!

You've already done so when you explained the scalar nature of the single mic of the audyssey setup

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701

I already had, but now you've reminded me again...

For your better u'standing of everyday physics Keith there are:

- Scalars that are quantities fully described by a magnitude (or numerical value) alone. Example: T = time

- Vectors that are quantities fully described by both a magnitude and a direction. Example: F = force

In case of the measurements taken by the Audyssey mic the quantities are scalars, i.e. only have a magnitude, but no directional info encoded (like in case of vectors), the mic remains direction-blind. Therefore, allocating a certain number of measurement positions in space to another seat in this case is simply meaningless. That's not the way Audyssey works. Audyssey collects "scalars", looks at similarities and treats them by a weighted approach correcting the most common "scalars" first.

Hope this helps readers of this thread wishing to understand deep(er) details. Thank you for your attention.
For a self-proclaimed engineer, your understanding of the science of acoustics, measurements and room correction is surprisingly poor.

To anyone ELSE, who might be interested, here's a simple explanation of it:
When you measure a room, different microphone locations are going to produce different results.
In order for room correction to correct acoustic anomalies, it has to measure the acoustics of the room, decide which anomalies to correct for and then make the corrections.

With the recommended wider mic placements, and the resulting greater variances in the measured results, compromises must be made to the compensation/correction and as such, chances are, you'd get a slightly more even response over the wider area, with a potentially less smooth response at the MLP.

The less there is to correct, the easier the job is for the room correction software. You can either reduce the variances by proper setup and use of acoustic treatments (bass traps, acoustics panels and proper placement of the speakers and subs etc.), or you can use a narrower placement of measurements. When you use a narrower mic placement, the narrower placement results in reduced variance and fewer anomalies to correct, therefore the result is a smoother frequency response result in the smaller area of the mic placements, but a potentially worse result over the wider area.

As an example, consider mic placements near the MLP that all show a dip at 63Hz and peaks at 120Hz and 160Hz. Since they all show the same thing, the room correction will attempt to correct for it. Now if you take wider mic placements, some of those measurements at placements further from the MLP may not show the peak at 120Hz, and may instead show a peak at 85Hz and 160Hz and a dip somewhere else. Take a look for instance, at Markus's REW graphs showing 8 measurement positions. Although they're all fairly similar in the broad sense of the word, they show peaks and dips at different frequencies due to the different placements. The EQ software then has to decide how much of which anomalies to correct for, and the general result is somewhat improved wide area response at the expense of compromises to the MLP response.

Using acoustic treatment and proper setup is the optimal solution as this tends to produce a more even response in general throughout the whole room, making it easier to achieve good results in the room before EQ, and even better results in the room after EQ.

What Keith has tried to do is simply to correct mostly for his MLP seat, but to include a couple of measurements taken from the 2nd seat, so the Audyssey software can see if there are any significant anomalies at those positions and make some compromises in correcting for them. The Audyssey mic doesn't need to know where it is in the room. It doesn't need a vector of the direction and magnitude of the wavefront. It simply measures the frequency response.

If the only anomalies in the FR in all the measurements near the MLP are a dip at 63Hz and a peak at 120Hz and 160Hz, it would correct for that. If you include 2 measurements further from the MLP and these 2 measurements show no dip at 63Hz, the same peak at 120Hz, and a another peak at 85Hz, then the software will decide to weight the 6 measurements that show the 160Hz peak vs the no peak at 160Hz for 2 measurements, as well as a peak at 85Hz in only 2 measurements. Since the peak at 160Hz shows up in all measurements, Audyssey can decide to correct for that.

It won't attempt to correct a narrow dip as this is likely a room induced null that can't be corrected via EQ. The weighting of the measured anomalies means the result will potentially be less correction at 120Hz resulting in a slight peak still remaining at the MLP, plus a slight dip due to a bit of correction applied at 85Hz due to the 2 measurements that showed a peak there. End result is a slightly less smooth result for the MLP, but a slightly better result at the 2nd seat.

Max
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek

The NAD only uses Audessyey to set distance, phase, and crossovers. Well, in this room, it could not do that correctly either. I confirmed it's measurement my sub and one rear were out of phase was wrong. I asked NAD about that, and they said " check it your self and ignore Audessey. It is frequently wrong"

I would love to see a demonstration of the pro system, but as we only have big-box stores here, I may never get the chance.

I think you have already received a recommendation that the Audyssey Pro Kit is unlikely to change any of your opinions of the Audyssey technology.  For what it is worth, the Pro Kit always reports that my subs are out of phase (but they aren't), so I simply ignore the warning and proceed, with consistently good results.

Wow! Great explanation Max!
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig

Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf

Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949

You need to look at the bright side, he's just pointing out one of the issues with Audyssey's inferior methods

Care to expand on the bolded part of your comment? Just curious like cat!

I'm not sure you want him to expand. He is mocking you.

Nothing quite that extreme. I was being tame. His 2 dimensional nature has its place in the debate imo
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf

Hard to digest physics, eh?

Here's a control question to you:

Can you explain Einstein's theory of relativitiy?

A. Yes.
B. No.

LOL

OK. let's see how Keith answers a much simpler question:

Does the Audyssey mic have directional clues?

A. Yes.

B. No.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

Explained
You didn't specify how, so that's on you jk
Now where did I put that head banging gif...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf

Again, ...can you answer how a single mic can have a directional (a.k.a. vectorial) clue? If you can I take my hat off! All ears! BTW, this a nice discussion, indeed! In the end we will all progress and benefit from this "chat". Surely!

1) One would hope that when you "ping" your system that audyssey and the mic are hearing the fundamental soundwave emanating from the speaker, and not a secondary or tertiary reflection that could potentially be louder than the fundamental, but my guess is stranger things have happened. In this case, Audyssey might think the speaker is in a completely different LOCATION than it truly is. Usually people see audyssey behave improperly when setting distances when this in fact happens. Even though audyssey doesn't come back and tell you "Your speaker is 10 feet out and 8 feet to the left," when in fact the speaker is only 6 feet out and 3 feet to the left, it could infer the former and cause an improper calibration. What could cause this to happen? Untreated nearfield walls, tables, wood floors, small babies, semi trucks in the way, who knows.

2) Even though the mic measures omnidirectionally, it could and in fact is supposed to take cues from the ping that makes it infer about where the speaker is SUPPOSED to be and filter the room response to IMPROVE the overall room response by suppressing the FR in areas where reflections are boosting or creating nulls in the FR. Once again, it doesn't know exactly where the sound is supposed to be coming from, but one would hope it would treat the fundamental as just that, and suppress the reflections it picks up to help out your overall response. When the "ping" emanates around the room, it picks this up and hopefully takes the strongest and quickest wave coming direct from the speaker, and starts treating the rest of response to correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig

Feri, I don't understand how you could generate this totally irrelevant argument.

Nothing Keith is doing is inconsistent with YOUR statement: "Audyssey collects "scalars", looks at similarities and treats them by a weighted approach correcting the most common "scalars" first."

3D mapping and scalars vs. vectors have nothing to do with it. All he is doing is including some measurement "samples" from a different location so the "problems" of that seat will be part of the data that Audyssey uses to analyze the acoustic problems in the room.

Absolutely wrong. I'm sorry. Keith thinks that a mic measurement to the left or right (not clarified by Keith so far) will make that seat benefit from such mic placements. But then, tell me please, how does Audyssey know Keith has placed the mic to the left or right from MPL when there is no such info Audyssey asks for. Again back to scalars vs. vectors. How can you do 3D mapping with scalars only? Please don't argue about a single mono mic taking magnitude and directional info at the same time. Rest assured that it takes magnitude only, no directional info will be gathered, impossible!

For better understanding of scalars: Time only has magnitude, but no direction, eh? Should you still be looking for how time is elapsing at the MLP, or to the left and right from MLP, please rest assured time will pass equally coz it has no directionality. On another note, we get older as time passes but our age has no directional clues, at least mine doesn't. Where ever I am on this green planet of God I have the same age.

Conclusion: Audyssey collects and processes scalar info without a directional clue.
Edited by mogorf - 9/12/13 at 3:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani

Now where did I put that head banging gif...

Here I thought this might be better.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=opcO5edCzZY&desktop_uri=%252Fwatch%253Fv%253DopcO5edCzZY
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1

For a self-proclaimed engineer, your understanding of the science of acoustics, measurements and room correction is surprisingly poor.

To anyone ELSE, who might be interested, here's a simple explanation of it:
When you measure a room, different microphone locations are going to produce different results.
In order for room correction to correct acoustic anomalies, it has to measure the acoustics of the room, decide which anomalies to correct for and then make the corrections.

With the recommended wider mic placements, and the resulting greater variances in the measured results, compromises must be made to the compensation/correction and as such, chances are, you'd get a slightly more even response over the wider area, with a potentially less smooth response at the MLP.

The less there is to correct, the easier the job is for the room correction software. You can either reduce the variances by proper setup and use of acoustic treatments (bass traps, acoustics panels and proper placement of the speakers and subs etc.), or you can use a narrower placement of measurements. When you use a narrower mic placement, the narrower placement results in reduced variance and fewer anomalies to correct, therefore the result is a smoother frequency response result in the smaller area of the mic placements, but a potentially worse result over the wider area.

As an example, consider mic placements near the MLP that all show a dip at 63Hz and peaks at 120Hz and 160Hz. Since they all show the same thing, the room correction will attempt to correct for it. Now if you take wider mic placements, some of those measurements at placements further from the MLP may not show the peak at 120Hz, and may instead show a peak at 85Hz and 160Hz and a dip somewhere else. Take a look for instance, at Markus's REW graphs showing 8 measurement positions. Although they're all fairly similar in the broad sense of the word, they show peaks and dips at different frequencies due to the different placements. The EQ software then has to decide how much of which anomalies to correct for, and the general result is somewhat improved wide area response at the expense of compromises to the MLP response.

Using acoustic treatment and proper setup is the optimal solution as this tends to produce a more even response in general throughout the whole room, making it easier to achieve good results in the room before EQ, and even better results in the room after EQ.

What Keith has tried to do is simply to correct mostly for his MLP seat, but to include a couple of measurements taken from the 2nd seat, so the Audyssey software can see if there are any significant anomalies at those positions and make some compromises in correcting for them. The Audyssey mic doesn't need to know where it is in the room. It doesn't need a vector of the direction and magnitude of the wavefront. It simply measures the frequency response.

If the only anomalies in the FR in all the measurements near the MLP are a dip at 63Hz and a peak at 120Hz and 160Hz, it would correct for that. If you include 2 measurements further from the MLP and these 2 measurements show no dip at 63Hz, the same peak at 120Hz, and a another peak at 85Hz, then the software will decide to weight the 6 measurements that show the 160Hz peak vs the no peak at 160Hz for 2 measurements, as well as a peak at 85Hz in only 2 measurements. Since the peak at 160Hz shows up in all measurements, Audyssey can decide to correct for that.

It won't attempt to correct a narrow dip as this is likely a room induced null that can't be corrected via EQ. The weighting of the measured anomalies means the result will potentially be less correction at 120Hz resulting in a slight peak still remaining at the MLP, plus a slight dip due to a bit of correction applied at 85Hz due to the 2 measurements that showed a peak there. End result is a slightly less smooth result for the MLP, but a slightly better result at the 2nd seat.

Max

Max, nice write up, but how does a mono mic take directional clues?
Edited by mogorf - 9/12/13 at 3:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb

Here I thought this might be better.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=opcO5edCzZY&desktop_uri=%252Fwatch%253Fv%253DopcO5edCzZY

Yeah, that's me after reading all the hogwash here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf

Max, nice write up, but how does a mono mic take directional clues?

I can't WAIT for the response to my post too Feri!

Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf

Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig

Feri, I don't understand how you could generate this totally irrelevant argument.

Nothing Keith is doing is inconsistent with YOUR statement: "Audyssey collects "scalars", looks at similarities and treats them by a weighted approach correcting the most common "scalars" first."

3D mapping and scalars vs. vectors have nothing to do with it. All he is doing is including some measurement "samples" from a different location so the "problems" of that seat will be part of the data that Audyssey uses to analyze the acoustic problems in the room.

Absolutely wrong. I'm sorry. Keith thinks that a mic measurement to the left or right (not clarified by Keith so far) will make that seat benefit from such mic placements. But then, tell me please, how does Audyssey know Keith has placed the mic to the left or right from MPL when there is no such info Audyssey asks for. Again back to scalars vs. vectors. How can you do 3D mapping with scalars only?

Why does it need directional cues or 3D mapping? It will simply include the frequency response measured in that position in its analysis of the distribution of acoustical problems. If doesn't matter if the seat is to the left or to the right, or what direction it is at all.

Your whole discussion of directionality is a red herring, it's totally irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio

1) One would hope that when you "ping" your system that audyssey and the mic are hearing the fundamental soundwave emanating from the speaker, and not a secondary or tertiary reflection that could potentially be louder than the fundamental, but my guess is stranger things have happened. In this case, Audyssey might think the speaker is in a completely different LOCATION than it truly is. Usually people see audyssey behave improperly when setting distances when this in fact happens. Even though audyssey doesn't come back and tell you "Your speaker is 10 feet out and 8 feet to the left," when in fact the speaker is only 6 feet out and 3 feet to the left, it could infer the former and cause an improper calibration. What could cause this to happen? Untreated nearfield walls, tables, wood floors, small babies, semi trucks in the way, who knows.

2) Even though the mic measures omnidirectionally, it could and in fact is supposed to take cues from the ping that makes it infer about where the speaker is SUPPOSED to be and filter the room response to IMPROVE the overall room response by suppressing the FR in areas where reflections are boosting or creating nulls in the FR. Once again, it doesn't know exactly where the sound is supposed to be coming from, but one would hope it would treat the fundamental as just that, and suppress the reflections it picks up to help out your overall response. When the "ping" emanates around the room, it picks this up and hopefully takes the strongest and quickest wave coming direct from the speaker, and starts treating the rest of response to correct.

No directional info collected by a single mono Audyssey mic, ever. Think about it for a moment or two and you will immediately see what I am taking about. Deal?

Take care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig

Why does it need directional cues or 3D mapping? It will simply include the frequency response measured in that position in its analysis of the distribution of acoustical problems. If doesn't matter if the seat is to the left or to the right, or what direction it is at all.

Your whole discussion of directionality is a red herring, it's totally irrelevant.

There is no such a thing that Audyssey measures anything in any position, except the MLP, but even the physical location of the MLP is not known by Audyssey. This will be the last time I chime in on this subject, unless you can tell me how a mono mic can capture directional clues... Be strong, please, I am a man who can be convinced with FACTS!!
You avoided the question. WHY does it need directional cues? How is that even relevant? All he is doing is including the frequency response at a different point in the room as part of the dataset. It doesn't matter where it is, it will be part of the "fuzzy logic" as Audyssey decides which problems to correct. If he didn't measure in that seat, then the acoustic problems unique to that seat wouldn't be part of the data input. Why do you have to overcomplicate this with all that irrelevant gibberish?

If you can be convinced with FACTS, does that mean you have recanted your incorrect earlier position that the threshold for Just Noticeable Difference is +/-3dB?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf

There is no such a thing that Audyssey measures anything in any position, except the MLP, but even the physical location of the MLP is not known by Audyssey. This will be the last time I chime in on this subject, unless you can tell me how a mono mic can capture directional clues... Be strong, please, I am a man who can be convinced with FACTS!!

If the physical location of the MLP is not known by Audyssey - how does it set speaker distances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig

Feri, I don't understand how you could generate this totally irrelevant argument.

Nothing Keith is doing is inconsistent with YOUR statement: "Audyssey collects "scalars", looks at similarities and treats them by a weighted approach correcting the most common "scalars" first."

3D mapping and scalars vs. vectors have nothing to do with it. All he is doing is including some measurement "samples" from a different location so the "problems" of that seat will be part of the data that Audyssey uses to analyze the acoustic problems in the room.

What I said was that I take most measurements around the seat that is the MLP and two measurements around the other seat. Feri seems not to able to comprehend that this is fairly normal practice. Audyssey itself advises the user to take measurements at various places around the room. Everything Feri has said is gibberish of a high order, and it would even be very amusing were it not yet another example of his persistent attempts to derail this thread with his pointless interventions. Every time he re-appears we are subject to merciless trolling and deliberate thread derailment.

Just got my Onkyo 818 today and ran XT32 for first time and compared to previous MultEQ.  Results are below.

Wow, the difference in sound is crazy. My previous complaints about dialog no longer exist.  Still have lots more playing and listening to do.

What exactly is that a measurement of? Doesn't look like the pre-outs, but rather in-room response? Is that a single point measurement or an average of multiple measurements? I'm assuming green is XT32?
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1

Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701

I already had, but now you've reminded me again...

For your better u'standing of everyday physics Keith there are:

- Scalars that are quantities fully described by a magnitude (or numerical value) alone. Example: T = time

- Vectors that are quantities fully described by both a magnitude and a direction. Example: F = force

In case of the measurements taken by the Audyssey mic the quantities are scalars, i.e. only have a magnitude, but no directional info encoded (like in case of vectors), the mic remains direction-blind. Therefore, allocating a certain number of measurement positions in space to another seat in this case is simply meaningless. That's not the way Audyssey works. Audyssey collects "scalars", looks at similarities and treats them by a weighted approach correcting the most common "scalars" first.

Hope this helps readers of this thread wishing to understand deep(er) details. Thank you for your attention.
For a self-proclaimed engineer, your understanding of the science of acoustics, measurements and room correction is surprisingly poor.

To anyone ELSE, who might be interested, here's a simple explanation of it:
When you measure a room, different microphone locations are going to produce different results.
In order for room correction to correct acoustic anomalies, it has to measure the acoustics of the room, decide which anomalies to correct for and then make the corrections.

With the recommended wider mic placements, and the resulting greater variances in the measured results, compromises must be made to the compensation/correction and as such, chances are, you'd get a slightly more even response over the wider area, with a potentially less smooth response at the MLP.

The less there is to correct, the easier the job is for the room correction software. You can either reduce the variances by proper setup and use of acoustic treatments (bass traps, acoustics panels and proper placement of the speakers and subs etc.), or you can use a narrower placement of measurements. When you use a narrower mic placement, the narrower placement results in reduced variance and fewer anomalies to correct, therefore the result is a smoother frequency response result in the smaller area of the mic placements, but a potentially worse result over the wider area.

As an example, consider mic placements near the MLP that all show a dip at 63Hz and peaks at 120Hz and 160Hz. Since they all show the same thing, the room correction will attempt to correct for it. Now if you take wider mic placements, some of those measurements at placements further from the MLP may not show the peak at 120Hz, and may instead show a peak at 85Hz and 160Hz and a dip somewhere else. Take a look for instance, at Markus's REW graphs showing 8 measurement positions. Although they're all fairly similar in the broad sense of the word, they show peaks and dips at different frequencies due to the different placements. The EQ software then has to decide how much of which anomalies to correct for, and the general result is somewhat improved wide area response at the expense of compromises to the MLP response.

Using acoustic treatment and proper setup is the optimal solution as this tends to produce a more even response in general throughout the whole room, making it easier to achieve good results in the room before EQ, and even better results in the room after EQ.

What Keith has tried to do is simply to correct mostly for his MLP seat, but to include a couple of measurements taken from the 2nd seat, so the Audyssey software can see if there are any significant anomalies at those positions and make some compromises in correcting for them. The Audyssey mic doesn't need to know where it is in the room. It doesn't need a vector of the direction and magnitude of the wavefront. It simply measures the frequency response.

If the only anomalies in the FR in all the measurements near the MLP are a dip at 63Hz and a peak at 120Hz and 160Hz, it would correct for that. If you include 2 measurements further from the MLP and these 2 measurements show no dip at 63Hz, the same peak at 120Hz, and a another peak at 85Hz, then the software will decide to weight the 6 measurements that show the 160Hz peak vs the no peak at 160Hz for 2 measurements, as well as a peak at 85Hz in only 2 measurements. Since the peak at 160Hz shows up in all measurements, Audyssey can decide to correct for that.

It won't attempt to correct a narrow dip as this is likely a room induced null that can't be corrected via EQ. The weighting of the measured anomalies means the result will potentially be less correction at 120Hz resulting in a slight peak still remaining at the MLP, plus a slight dip due to a bit of correction applied at 85Hz due to the 2 measurements that showed a peak there. End result is a slightly less smooth result for the MLP, but a slightly better result at the 2nd seat.

Max

What an excellent explanation, Max. Your post captures what most of us already know, but explains it perfectly. In my own situation, I am aware that Audyssey works by trying to provide a consistent frequency response across a range of seating positions in order to deliver a good sound for every seat. This latter of course is not the same as delivering an optimal sound for one seat. In fact, the way Audyssey works guarantees a suboptimal result for every seat, but it is a consistent result for every seat. Myself, not being concerned with any seat other my own, I could take all the measurements around the MLP, which is what I used to do. But having experimented with taking 7 or 8 measurements around the MLP, and a couple around the second seat, I found that the result at the MLP is not really all that adversely affected and it allows at least a nod to the needs of the person in the second seat. IOW, as you say at the end of your post, this gives a slightly less good response at the MLP, but a slightly better result at the 2nd seat. Only someone bent on derailing the thread would be unable to see all of this clearly.

Given that Mrs Keith has been angelic in her tolerance of my hobby, and has permitted the giving up of what used to be our dining room for a home theatre, to not at least give a nod in her direction in the second seat would seem churlish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig

What exactly is that a measurement of? Doesn't look like the pre-outs, but rather in-room response? Is that a single point measurement or an average of multiple measurements? I'm assuming green is XT32?

Yes green is XT32.  1/12 octave smoothed measured at MLP.

One thing interesting was my levels and distances were exactly the same between receivers which gives me confidence in the mics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani

Now where did I put that head banging gif...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ggsantafe

If the physical location of the MLP is not known by Audyssey - how does it set speaker distances?

By measuring delays that are calculated into distances.
A question I've always had about Audyssey XT is that there seem to be many fewer "pings" than the "hundreds of points" they claim Audyssey XT EQs, What's the explanation?
• My ear isn't fast enough
• The extra points are somehow inferred ...
• There are not "hundreds of points," but a number more like _____
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig

You avoided the question. WHY does it need directional cues? How is that even relevant? All he is doing is including the frequency response at a different point in the room as part of the dataset. It doesn't matter where it is, it will be part of the "fuzzy logic" as Audyssey decides which problems to correct. If he didn't measure in that seat, then the acoustic problems unique to that seat wouldn't be part of the data input.

This is it. It's that simple. A frequency response will vary from the MLP to another seat. A seat to the left closer to a wall will have different effects on the frequency response due to the walls being closer, perhaps a nook in the wall or a mirror or some kind of shelving. All of these physical items will have effects on the sound waves interacting with them that will be unique to that particular seat. Audyssey doesnt need to know a directional, all it needs is the collected data of the frequency response of that seat. which it does measure and then takes into account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison

A question I've always had about Audyssey XT is that there seem to be many fewer "pings" than the "hundreds of points" they claim Audyssey XT EQs, What's the explanation?
• My ear isn't fast enough
• The extra points are somehow inferred ...
• There are not "hundreds of points," but a number more like _____

Fasten your seatbelt Dorothy ..... XT32 has over 10,000 control points!
Exactly - the measurement of the delays is based on the LOCATION of the first measurement at the MLP - Audyssey does not make random calculations - their algorithms have to have data generated by the first measurement position, the MLP. Thus the statement that Audyssey does not "know" the location of the MLP at the first measurement location seems false to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf

By measuring delays that are calculated into distances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ggsantafe

If the physical location of the MLP is not known by Audyssey - how does it set speaker distances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison

A question I've always had about Audyssey XT is that there seem to be many fewer "pings" than the "hundreds of points" they claim Audyssey XT EQs, What's the explanation?
• My ear isn't fast enough
• The extra points are somehow inferred ...
• There are not "hundreds of points," but a number more like _____

Actually the explanation is that you are mistakenly conflating the calibration "pings" with the EQ filters.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
• "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)