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 2166

post #64951 of 70896
Very true. And the sweeps are analog, not a collection of "points". I remember Chris K. explaining that the chirps are actually full spectrum sweeps that occur so fast that our ears don't really perceive what is happening.
post #64952 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggsantafe View Post

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.
 

 

Most of us can see that what you, and all the others who have contributed to this needless and irrelevant discussion, say is correct. 

 

For anyone who is still in doubt about how to position the mic for Audyssey measurements, this FAQ answer might help. Like all FAQ answers, it has been written especially for the beginners amongst us and those who struggle to understand how Audyssey works. If, after reading the FAQ answer, anyone is still not clear on the hows and whys of mic placement, I am sure that if they post their questions they will receive constructive and useful help.

 

d)3.   Where should I position the mic for best results?

post #64953 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Very true. And the sweeps are analog, not a collection of "points". I remember Chris K. explaining that the chirps are actually full spectrum sweeps that occur so fast that our ears don't really perceive what is happening.

This is true. The sweep is similar to the shortest sweep you can do with REW if you have tried (which I know you have), but they are just sequential. If you listen very closely you can kind of hear the sweep, but only if you have heard longer sweeps to compare to if I had to guess.
post #64954 of 70896
Hi,

I have a Denon 2112 and just moved to a new house and re-ran the Audyssey calibration. The channel (trim) level results were:

Front L: -7.5db
Front R: -7.5db
Center: -12db
Sub: -6.0db
Surround L: -6.0db
Surround R: -7.5db

The max trim level on the Denon is +/- 12db so I'm concerned about the Center trim level reaching -12db. If it reaches the max value, isn't it possible that it should be say, -13db or -14db? What are my options to get the Center level within the +/-12db range?

Thanks
post #64955 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post


Not Mo, but when I tried this (the procedure is described in the HTS Forum), I immediately noticed that the overall frequency response was considerably flatter, when measured from the MLP only.  I attribute this to the fact that since the mic placements are so close, the frequency response variations due to room position are minimized, therefore Audyssey has fewer variations to compensate for.

HST, measurements taken over a wider area than the MLP showed a less even frequency response.  So, whether you think the "tight" mic pattern sounds better or not depends on whether you are sitting in the MLP or not.  For selfish people like Keith and myself (I mean that in a good way), optimizing response at the MLP could be a good thing.  These are my conclusions based on my observations--YMMV.

Lump me in the slightly "selfish" category too, but going even more away from the playbook, a single measurement calibration actually yields the absolute flattest response for me at the MLP, but the "bubble" at that point is VERY small. That isn't to say I have listened and preferring a single point measurement for 2 channel listening, for just me, but moving to the tighter pattern has yielded near perfect results, and the rest of the room benefits somewhat too from it.
 
 
To prove my point above, this graph was a single point calibration:



And this was one with a 5 point calibration:


 

 

Beast - I was thinking about this this morning.  As we know, the way Audyssey works is to sample various parts of the room during measurement phase and look for commonalities or differences in the frequency response in the different locations. It then uses its secret sauce (weighted averaging etc) in order to modify the FR to create the minimum of seat to seat variance across the room. IOW, 'every seat is a good seat' after calibration. But this is not the same as "every seat is an optimal seat". In fact, Audyssey guarantees a sub-optimal response in each seat because it is not (and cannot) trying to provide that - the aim is consistent FR across all seats.

 

When you place the mic in just one position, you are making Audyssey think that your room has amazing seat to seat consistency. As such, it can then devote all of its resources to optimising the FR instead of trying to 'average' the FR across several seats. This would then explain why you get such an amazingly flat graph at the MLP when you measure just one location. You have moved from 'every seat is a good seat' to 'one seat is an optimal seat'. It has the downside, of course, of leaving the other seats to fend for themselves and the 'bubble' of audio perfection is going to be minute, such that even a small head movement may introduce anomalies.

 

This has made me think that, for those of us concerned only with the single MLP seat, Jerry's pattern of mic spacing at 6 inches apart is probably near ideal. I will certainly try this out at some stage.

 

Another way of looking at what I am currently doing ( most positions around the MLP and just two positions in the other seat) is that I am adjusting the weighting to my preference. By clustering most mic positions around the MLP I am telling Audyssey that the majority of the 'room' is very consistent but there is one seat that is a little different (the 2nd seat) so I am forcing the weighting to reflect my seating preference, while not totally ignoring the 2nd seat. 

 

I guess this boils down to what individual users want: if we want "every seat to be a good seat" then use the Audyssey recommended mic positions. If OTOH we want "one seat to be the optimal seat" then a closer mic pattern is required.

 

I am ignoring the part played by careful speaker positioning and room treatments in order to minimise seat to seat variance. We are all agreed that the latter gives Audyssey the best chance of a good calibration. Where we seem to be moving on a little (or perhaps more accurately, where I am moving on a little :))  is the recognition of why Audyssey gives a better result when seat to seat variance has been pre-established via physical means: the allocation of Audyssey's resources can be better utilised in creating filters. Your single seat, one position, measurement seems to be the proof of that.

post #64956 of 70896

I found this in-depth article from hometheaterhifi.com on Anthem's ARC room correction system to be a fascinating read, with a lot of insights into how automated RC works and also some relevant comparisons with how XT32 works. By using a laptop for the processing, ARC can achieve rather more than XT32 in many areas, albeit with more user complexity. ARC also has much of the flexibility of Audyssey Pro (in fact much more than Pro allows) in enabling users to tweak the parameters of the measurement/calibration. I especially liked the quick measurement facility which allows the user to optimise speaker and sub locations easily prior to running ARC -  something we have to use REW for. A good read.

 

 

Anthem Room Correction (ARC) System - Part 2

post #64957 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Beast - I was thinking about this this morning.  As we know, the way Audyssey works is to sample various parts of the room during measurement phase and look for commonalities or differences in the frequency response in the different locations. It then uses its secret sauce (weighted averaging etc) in order to modify the FR to create the minimum of seat to seat variance across the room. IOW, 'every seat is a good seat' after calibration. But this is not the same as "every seat is an optimal seat". In fact, Audyssey guarantees a sub-optimal response in each seat because it is not (and cannot) trying to provide that - the aim is consistent FR across all seats.


When you place the mic in just one position, you are making Audyssey think that your room has amazing seat to seat consistency. As such, it can then devote all of its resources to optimising the FR instead of trying to 'average' the FR across several seats. This would then explain why you get such an amazingly flat graph at the MLP when you measure just one location. You have moved from 'every seat is a good seat' to 'one seat is an optimal seat'. It has the downside, of course, of leaving the other seats to fend for themselves and the 'bubble' of audio perfection is going to be minute, such that even a small head movement may introduce anomalies.

And I have noticed this more and more as my speakers over the years have become increasingly revealing. While it looks pretty, a single point calibration just doesn't work unless you are simply testing the response while making small changes, or you listen to your setup with your head in a vice.

This has made me think that, for those of us concerned only with the single MLP seat, Jerry's pattern of mic spacing at 6 inches apart is probably near ideal. I will certainly try this out at some stage.

Another way of looking at what I am currently doing ( most positions around the MLP and just two positions in the other seat) is that I am adjusting the weighting to my preference. By clustering most mic positions around the MLP I am telling Audyssey that the majority of the 'room' is very consistent but there is one seat that is a little different (the 2nd seat) so I am forcing the weighting to reflect my seating preference, while not totally ignoring the 2nd seat. 

Sure, and by doing this audyssey could very well measure a detrimental peak or dip at the 2nd MLP that it could easily adjust it's original filters by and still leave the MLP in an good spot.

I guess this boils down to what individual users want: if we want "every seat to be a good seat" then use the Audyssey recommended mic positions. If OTOH we want "one seat to be the optimal seat" then a closer mic pattern is required.

And once again, after hours of trying both ways and not a SINGLE person anywhere else in the room being able to tell the difference, I have basically stopped even testing the former. tongue.gif

I am ignoring the part played by careful speaker positioning and room treatments in order to minimise seat to seat variance. We are all agreed that the latter gives Audyssey the best chance of a good calibration. Where we seem to be moving on a little (or perhaps more accurately, where I am moving on a little smile.gif)  is the recognition of why Audyssey gives a better result when seat to seat variance has been pre-established via physical means: the allocation of Audyssey's resources can be better utilised in creating filters. Your single seat, one position, measurement seems to be the proof of that.

It certainly does, and was quite surprising, but as you stated and for all those reading, either method can't trump proper speaker and room integration biggrin.gifbiggrin.gif
post #64958 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I found this in-depth article from hometheaterhifi.com on Anthem's ARC room correction system to be a fascinating read, with a lot of insights into how automated RC works and also some relevant comparisons with how XT32 works. By using a laptop for the processing, ARC can achieve rather more than XT32 in many areas, albeit with more user complexity. ARC also has much of the flexibility of Audyssey Pro (in fact much more than Pro allows) in enabling users to tweak the parameters of the measurement/calibration. I especially liked the quick measurement facility which allows the user to optimise speaker and sub locations easily prior to running ARC -  something we have to use REW for. A good read.

 


Anthem Room Correction (ARC) System - Part 2

Quite a read indeed, and a philosophy that our favorite CTO can learn from. But I wonder how ARC does in the time domain compared to XT32...I'd love to see some waterfall and ETC plots to compare.

Don't give me ideas: I already a project or three to keep me busy!
post #64959 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post
 

And I have noticed this more and more as my speakers over the years have become increasingly revealing. While it looks pretty, a single point calibration just doesn't work unless you are simply testing the response while making small changes, or you listen to your setup with your head in a vice.

Sure, and by doing this audyssey could very well measure a detrimental peak or dip at the 2nd MLP that it could easily adjust it's original filters by and still leave the MLP in an good spot.


And once again, after hours of trying both ways and not a SINGLE person anywhere else in the room being able to tell the difference, I have basically stopped even testing the former. tongue.gif

 

 

 

Yes +1 to all that. Especially true that, usually, most 'normal' people either can’t tell the difference or don't care. I occasionally watch a movie with various friends and not one of them has ever said that the sound is less than sensational. 

 

 

Quote:
 It certainly does, and was quite surprising, but as you stated and for all those reading, either method can't trump proper speaker and room integration biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

 

Quite. That is where the really, really big differences come from. But for those who can't, or don't wish to, treat their rooms etc, XT32 can be a very good alternative, so long as people realise it is not a magic wand and has its limitations. And like Dirty Harry said, "a man has to know his limitations". :)

post #64960 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I found this in-depth article from hometheaterhifi.com on Anthem's ARC room correction system to be a fascinating read, with a lot of insights into how automated RC works and also some relevant comparisons with how XT32 works. By using a laptop for the processing, ARC can achieve rather more than XT32 in many areas, albeit with more user complexity. ARC also has much of the flexibility of Audyssey Pro (in fact much more than Pro allows) in enabling users to tweak the parameters of the measurement/calibration. I especially liked the quick measurement facility which allows the user to optimise speaker and sub locations easily prior to running ARC -  something we have to use REW for. A good read.

 

Anthem Room Correction (ARC) System - Part 2

Quite a read indeed, and a philosophy that our favorite CTO can learn from. But I wonder how ARC does in the time domain compared to XT32...I'd love to see some waterfall and ETC plots to compare.

Don't give me ideas: I already a project or three to keep me busy!

 

I suspected you would be a prime candidate for that article. Interesting isn't it?  I initially thought, while reading it, that the Anthem units would be horrifically expensive, given the amazing level of sophistication of ARC - but I googled afterwards and found their top of the range AVR still costs less than my Onkyo prepro. I have no intention to change the Onk, but if I was going to, I think I would have to seriously consider an Anthem unit after reading this.

 

I would love to have some of those features in XT32 or Pro.

post #64961 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I suspected you would be a prime candidate for that article. Interesting isn't it?  I initially thought, while reading it, that the Anthem units would be horrifically expensive, given the amazing level of sophistication of ARC - but I googled afterwards and found their top of the range AVR still costs less than my Onkyo prepro. I have no intention to change the Onk, but if I was going to, I think I would have to seriously consider an Anthem unit after reading this.

I would love to have some of those features in XT32 or Pro.

While I'd love the option to define two separate and independently defined calibrations, make use of 64-bit procesing paths, and tweak the slope of the target curve with the 'room gain' optional feature, XT32 has mid-range compensation (multiple ones in Pro), and with some finesse, the Target Pro Curve Editor offers more tailored target curve editing across all channels than ARC offers. DEQ and DVOL are debatable advantages for many uses, but I'd still rather have at least DEQ than not as an option.

In addition, IIRC the user needs to set distances manually in an ARC system, which makes the Quick Setup less of a solution for placement than it could be, although YMMV. While less tweakable, I still think that at the end of the day, XT32 with the Pro add-on is a better RC package for most non-dedicated room users. So while there's some nice things Audyssey could use, I'd look at Trinnov and Dirac as the only serious full-band competitors to Audyssey as standalone RC solutions go, as for many of us, time domain correction solutions for REQ are the next frontier (something the reviewer dismisses out of hand for philosophical reasons).

But those L/R frequency response curves are certainly smooth!
Edited by sdrucker - 9/13/13 at 10:21am
post #64962 of 70896
I'm glad you posted those anthem articles. I remember when I read them thinking that I might be better off with an Anthem. And I may buy one for my next receiver. OTOH some of the simplicity/convenience features like dyn eq and dyn volume would have to be similarly implemented (and as pleasingly) before I'd be a full converty.
post #64963 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I suspected you would be a prime candidate for that article. Interesting isn't it?  I initially thought, while reading it, that the Anthem units would be horrifically expensive, given the amazing level of sophistication of ARC - but I googled afterwards and found their top of the range AVR still costs less than my Onkyo prepro. I have no intention to change the Onk, but if I was going to, I think I would have to seriously consider an Anthem unit after reading this.

I would love to have some of those features in XT32 or Pro.

While I'd love the option to define two separate and independently defined calibrations, make use of 64-bit procesing paths, and tweak the slope of the target curve with the 'room gain' optional feature, XT32 has mid-range compensation (multiple ones in Pro), and with some finesse, the Target Pro Curve Editor offers more tailored target curve editing across all channels than ARC offers. DEQ and DVOL are debatable advantages for many uses, but I'd still rather have at least DEQ than not as an option.

In addition, IIRC the user needs to set distances manually in an ARC system, which makes the Quick Setup less of a solution for placement than it could be, although YMMV. While less tweakable, I still think that at the end of the day, XT32 with the Pro add-on is a better RC package for most non-dedicated room users. So while there's some nice things Audyssey could use, I'd look at Trinnov and Dirac as the only serious full-band competitors to Audyssey as standalone RC solutions go, as for many of us, time domain correction solutions for REQ are the next frontier (something the reviewer dismisses out of hand for philosophical reasons).

But those L/R frequency response curves are certainly smooth!

 

The problem, for me, with Trinnov and Dirac is that you can only get one via a cr&p AVR and the other by a substantial investment. The beauty of ARC is that it seems to work very well indeed and it also appears in a highly regarded, well-reviewed quality AVR.  Anyway, don't you have things to do?  LOL!!

post #64964 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

I'm glad you posted those anthem articles. I remember when I read them thinking that I might be better off with an Anthem. And I may buy one for my next receiver. OTOH some of the simplicity/convenience features like dyn eq and dyn volume would have to be similarly implemented (and as pleasingly) before I'd be a full converty.

 

Yes, agreed. Seems you can’t have everything in one unit. I can live without DEQ, although I do use it currently. But my room is well-treated and I tend to listen to almost everything at the same SPLs - I have no problems with neighbours, sleeping kids or WAF in this regard. I could really just dial in a house curve with PEQ and be done. Similarly, I have never even engaged Dynamic Volume - it might not even work on my AVP for all I know :)  I would definitely consider Anthem if I needed a new unit - their entry level MRX 300 would make a stonking prepro by all appearances.  That is not to say I would definitely go with Anthem but I would certainly add it to my list.

post #64965 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post


While I'd love the option to define two separate and independently defined calibrations, make use of 64-bit procesing paths, and tweak the slope of the target curve with the 'room gain' optional feature, XT32 has mid-range compensation (multiple ones in Pro), and with some finesse, the Target Pro Curve Editor offers more tailored target curve editing across all channels than ARC offers. DEQ and DVOL are debatable advantages for many uses, but I'd still rather have at least DEQ than not as an option.

In addition, IIRC the user needs to set distances manually in an ARC system, which makes the Quick Setup less of a solution for placement than it could be, although YMMV. While less tweakable, I still think that at the end of the day, XT32 with the Pro add-on is a better RC package for most non-dedicated room users. So while there's some nice things Audyssey could use, I'd look at Trinnov and Dirac as the only serious full-band competitors to Audyssey as standalone RC solutions go, as for many of us, time domain correction solutions for REQ are the next frontier (something the reviewer dismisses out of hand for philosophical reasons).

But those L/R frequency response curves are certainly smooth!

 

This was exactly my take on ARC vs XT32 as I have been investigating over the last couple months.  Other than room gain ARC really isn't that much more flexible.  A Pro kit gets you everything but was too rich for my blood so settled on Onkyo 818 and XT32.  My other consideration was the Sherwood R972 with Trinnov but in the end went with the less quirky receiver.  XT32 has made a world of difference for me.

post #64966 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

Quite a read indeed, and a philosophy that our favorite CTO can learn from. But I wonder how ARC does in the time domain compared to XT32...I'd love to see some waterfall and ETC plots to compare.

Don't give me ideas: I already a project or three to keep me busy!

You don't need to correct anything in the time domain as they are related through the Fourier transform. What the time domain does give you is an additional way to look for problems along with frequency response and phase. If you correct the frequency response you also correct the time response.

Audio Science - Dr. Floyd Toole provides the technical/scientific reasoning behind this at the bottom of page 25.

Cheers.

Tony
Edited by TKO1 - 9/13/13 at 1:02pm
post #64967 of 70896
dynamic volume is one of the best features i have ever found. I realize its clearly tweaking perefectly good sound and turning it into something else, but it really is the only one I've ever experienced that has worked well enough to keep me pleased with the sound and still keep me happy with the surrounds/bass while others were trying to sleep.
post #64968 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

I'm glad you posted those anthem articles. I remember when I read them thinking that I might be better off with an Anthem. And I may buy one for my next receiver. OTOH some of the simplicity/convenience features like dyn eq and dyn volume would have to be similarly implemented (and as pleasingly) before I'd be a full converty.

Yes, agreed. Seems you can’t have everything in one unit. I can live without DEQ, although I do use it currently. But my room is well-treated and I tend to listen to almost everything at the same SPLs - I have no problems with neighbours, sleeping kids or WAF in this regard. I could really just dial in a house curve with PEQ and be done. Similarly, I have never even engaged Dynamic Volume - it might not even work on my AVP for all I know smile.gif  I would definitely consider Anthem if I needed a new unit - their entry level MRX 300 would make a stonking prepro by all appearances.  That is not to say I would definitely go with Anthem but I would certainly add it to my list.

I saw pics of your room and I really liked the setup! Lot of room treatments you had in there as well. The PQ also looked very nice smile.gif
post #64969 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kojak711 View Post

Hi,

I have a Denon 2112 and just moved to a new house and re-ran the Audyssey calibration. The channel (trim) level results were:

Front L: -7.5db
Front R: -7.5db
Center: -12db
Sub: -6.0db
Surround L: -6.0db
Surround R: -7.5db

The max trim level on the Denon is +/- 12db so I'm concerned about the Center trim level reaching -12db. If it reaches the max value, isn't it possible that it should be say, -13db or -14db? What are my options to get the Center level within the +/-12db range?

Thanks

Any advice here? I did read the FAQ section but I don't have an SPL meter.
post #64970 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

The problem, for me, with Trinnov and Dirac is that you can only get one via a cr&p AVR and the other by a substantial investment. The beauty of ARC is that it seems to work very well indeed and it also appears in a highly regarded, well-reviewed quality AVR.  Anyway, don't you have things to do?  LOL!!

A quibble: Trinnov is also available by a substantial investment smile.gif ($7000 U.S. and up. Way up.)
Kal reviewed one of their external units in a recent issue of Stereophile. Unfortunately he was unable to directly compare it to Audyssey since his 8801 was at his other house.
post #64971 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kojak711 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kojak711 View Post

Hi,

I have a Denon 2112 and just moved to a new house and re-ran the Audyssey calibration. The channel (trim) level results were:

Front L: -7.5db
Front R: -7.5db
Center: -12db
Sub: -6.0db
Surround L: -6.0db
Surround R: -7.5db

The max trim level on the Denon is +/- 12db so I'm concerned about the Center trim level reaching -12db. If it reaches the max value, isn't it possible that it should be say, -13db or -14db? What are my options to get the Center level within the +/-12db range?

Thanks

Any advice here? I did read the FAQ section but I don't have an SPL meter.

A problem is that the standard recommendation won't work for you. frown.gif
To raise a trim level from -12dB toward 0 an in-line attenuator is usually recommended. That only works for line-level outputs between a receiver (or pre/pro) and an external amplifier. It can't be used for speaker-level signals.

What model is your center speaker? Is it in the same model family as your fronts?
One workaround would be to use a less efficient speaker model, especially if one is available which is more like the other front speakers.

What's the environment of the center speaker?
Might it be adjacent to a hard surface (like the floor or a shelf) so that immediate reflections could be adding to the detected audio level?
In that case, an adjacent absorber (like a thick rug) might help.
post #64972 of 70896
^ wouldn't it be funny if running a long thin speaker wire did the trick ? =]
post #64973 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

A quibble: Trinnov is also available by a substantial investment smile.gif ($7000 U.S. and up. Way up.)
Kal reviewed one of their external units in a recent issue of Stereophile. Unfortunately he was unable to directly compare it to Audyssey since his 8801 was at his other house.

The circa $7K investment is for the four-channel ST2 unit (the exact amount depends on the Euro to USD conversion). If you want an eight channel processor with the version of Trinnov that Kal reviewed, be prepared to spend at least double. More if you want to keep the signal path to room correction more completely in the digital domain and make use of the ADA bus.
Edited by sdrucker - 9/13/13 at 1:55pm
post #64974 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

^ wouldn't it be funny if running a long thin speaker wire did the trick ? =]

Except that it might get very, very warm, which might not be so funny frown.gif
post #64975 of 70896
Does the pro kit enforce the big bass boost that xt32 via the Marantz gave me? If I say "Audessey flat", should it not be trying to give a reasonably flat bass response? ( which I happen to like) Of course,accepting it should not be trying to boost nulls, but should be attacking peaks. I have found no documentation what the response of "Audessey recommended"is. I assume it ignores the upper octave roll off and has a moderate broad bass boost.

Next year I intend to replace the Rotel in my living room with modern equipment. It would be nice to know if I should try Audessey again, ARC, or some other brands tool. I would love to try another Emo, as I just HAVE to believe my unit was defective as I can't imagine them shipping more than one with the problems it had. They said it was fine. It is hard to believe the results from the Marantz were not defective.

Is there anything intrinsic that would prevent Audessey from working in this room?
Only a 12 x 14 room.
Listening ( prime) position only a foot or so from the rear wall
Large absorbers on the front wall behind the speakers ( right against the wall)
Rears are only a few inches from the rear wall.
Main speakers are pretty darn flat measured on a pole in the back yard at 1M. ( Sealed Dayton/Seas of my own design)
Sub ( Sealed Dayton) is a bit of a higher Q than I wanted, but space restrictions. It's cabinet is mounted in the wall above the TV.

Besides my ears, I use TrueRTA ( 1/64 octave) HOLM, ARTA and SoundEasy with my calibrated measurement system.. I get very close results if I use a chirp, noise or MLS methods. I have good reason to believe my measurements. I go back to my question: How can Audessey be the dominant and respected technology if it provides the kind of results I am getting?

Sure wish a dealer hers could demonstrate this stuff. Not in Maryland.
post #64976 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

^ wouldn't it be funny if running a long thin speaker wire did the trick ? =]

Except that it might get very, very warm, which might not be so funny frown.gif

by no means a serious recommendation, but for grins and giggles lets think this one out a bit. If right now the AVR's signal is trimmed as low as it can go in that channel and you use just enough wire to where the trim is set to -12db again, but this time the -12 produces the right reduction in the SPL (instead of exceeding it as is being theorized), wouldn't the receiver still be working at the same effort level as with the shorter wire?
post #64977 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

Quite a read indeed, and a philosophy that our favorite CTO can learn from. But I wonder how ARC does in the time domain compared to XT32...I'd love to see some waterfall and ETC plots to compare.

Don't give me ideas: I already a project or three to keep me busy!

You don't need to correct anything in the time domain as they are related through the Fourier transform. What the time domain does give you is an additional way to look for problems along with frequency response and phase. If you correct the frequency response you also correct the time response.

Audio Science - Dr. Floyd Toole provides the technical/scientific reasoning behind this at the bottom of page 25.

Cheers.

Tony

 

Yes, I meant to raise this with Stuart but forgot when I replied... do we believe that Audyssey corrects in the time domain?  Or is any benefit in the time domain simply a result of correction in the frequency domain?  Personally, I never saw much evidence that Audyssey corrected in the time domain, other than as just mentioned. Almost 100% of my time domain improvements, which have been significant over, well, time, have come from room treatments and speaker placement optimisation.

post #64978 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

dynamic volume is one of the best features i have ever found. I realize its clearly tweaking perefectly good sound and turning it into something else, but it really is the only one I've ever experienced that has worked well enough to keep me pleased with the sound and still keep me happy with the surrounds/bass while others were trying to sleep.

 

Yes, used in those circumstances I can see the benefits. If it's a DV-ed movie or no movie, I'd go with the former any day (or night more likely).

post #64979 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

I'm glad you posted those anthem articles. I remember when I read them thinking that I might be better off with an Anthem. And I may buy one for my next receiver. OTOH some of the simplicity/convenience features like dyn eq and dyn volume would have to be similarly implemented (and as pleasingly) before I'd be a full converty.

Yes, agreed. Seems you can’t have everything in one unit. I can live without DEQ, although I do use it currently. But my room is well-treated and I tend to listen to almost everything at the same SPLs - I have no problems with neighbours, sleeping kids or WAF in this regard. I could really just dial in a house curve with PEQ and be done. Similarly, I have never even engaged Dynamic Volume - it might not even work on my AVP for all I know smile.gif  I would definitely consider Anthem if I needed a new unit - their entry level MRX 300 would make a stonking prepro by all appearances.  That is not to say I would definitely go with Anthem but I would certainly add it to my list.

I saw pics of your room and I really liked the setup! Lot of room treatments you had in there as well. The PQ also looked very nice smile.gif

 

That was the old room. The new room looks even better IMO, with a few more treatments added. I have promised to post some pics as soon as I get a round tuit.

post #64980 of 70896
tvrgeek,

It just might be that you're much more critical than the rest of us smile.gif

Also, of course, you've put a lot of effort into the sound that you hear now, so that a different sounding audio, whether better or not, just wouldn't be as enjoyable.

Would it be possible to get pictures of your room? Your description didn't sound too outrageous, although you don't mention side- or rear-wall absorbers or diffusers.

Baltimore doesn't seem all that far away from Bowie. There must be some high-end resellers there.
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)