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 2167

post #64981 of 70895
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.

 

It's a tricky question. Take a look at this FAQ answer to see if it helps - and come back here if it doesn't and we'll explore it in more depth.

 

e)6.   What do I do if my trim levels are at the limits of their adjustment ('maxed out')?

post #64982 of 70895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post
 
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.

Fair point, Selden, but one which makes me even less likely to consider Trinnov! :)

post #64983 of 70895
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post


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.

 

 

There's nothing there that I can see that would prevent XT32 from giving you a reasonable result. I’d measure the room first to see what I'd be dealing with, acoustically. Then I'd move things around as far as possible, while measuring, to ensure that speakers, sub and MLP were as optimal as I could get them. Then I'd run Audyssey. Then I’d measure again. Then I'd listen with a variety of familiar content. Then I’d report back here :)

post #64984 of 70895
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

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?

The receiver would be fine. I'm more concerned about the wire. A 3dB attenuation would require the wire to absorb the same amount of power as the speaker does. 12dB would be about 16x, I think. Unless I'm completely confused, which certainly is possible.
post #64985 of 70895
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

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.

I don't think there's any direct correction of Audyssey in the time domain either...but that doesn't mean that there isn't any benefit due to correction in the frequency domain due to the Fourier transform, or that there isn't a difference in what the benefit is between one RC correcting FR and another (i.e. ARC vs. XT32). "Almost 100%" and "100%" aren't the same thing...whether measuring bass decay or impulse response after room correction vs. before room correction is up to you

At least Dirac "claims" to have such a correction to impulse response, and the Trinnov description (from what they say about their ST2) says something about "working in the time domain to achieve a high resolution stereophonic image with well-focused phantom sources...The loudspeaker’s sound (including the early reflections) and the room (energy response) are separately equalized, opening up the listening window".

Take that for what it may be worth....
post #64986 of 70895
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post

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.


 

There's nothing there that I can see that would prevent XT32 from giving you a reasonable result. I’d measure the room first to see what I'd be dealing with, acoustically. Then I'd move things around as far as possible, while measuring, to ensure that speakers, sub and MLP were as optimal as I could get them. Then I'd run Audyssey. Then I’d measure again. Then I'd listen with a variety of familiar content. Then I’d report back here smile.gif

Note that the subwoofer is built into the wall above the TV. That'd be a little hard to move smile.gif

However, doesn't that place it on the midline of the room? Isn't that one of the worst locations for exciting standing waves? Especially if it's half-way between floor and ceiling. Or am I confused again?

Another reason for pictures, perhaps.
post #64987 of 70895
ahh ok Selden, I thought you were talking about the receiver. We are on the same page.
post #64988 of 70895
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post

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.

 

 

I didn't see anyone address tvrgeek's question regarding Pro.  The answer is that both the consumer version and the Pro kit are based on the same underlying Audyssey technology in the AVR, in this case XT32.  So, if the consumer version is providing unpleasant bass response, the Pro calibration is not likely to improve it.  To me, there are indications that you have bass response issues with your listening room that just cannot be corrected by Audyssey.  Measuring your room response would allow you to assess the current state and take corrective actions before running the Audyssey calibration.

 

I have mentioned several times before that I don't think the Pro kit is the right thing for you right now.  Think of a carpenter building a house.  First, he "roughs it in", then he goes back with the finishing touches.  You are still in the "roughing in" stage WRT Audyssey, and Pro is the "finishing touch".

post #64989 of 70895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

Note that the subwoofer is built into the wall above the TV. That'd be a little hard to move smile.gif

However, doesn't that place it on the midline of the room? Isn't that one of the worst locations for exciting standing waves? Especially if it's half-way between floor and ceiling. Or am I confused again?

Another reason for pictures, perhaps.

Above the tv he said, but that very well could be near the midpoint of the room which is not a good place at all to have a sub. Unfortunate that the sub is probably been custom built into that space, but other areas would more than likely yield much better response, but if it isn't an option, there isn't a point of discussing it any further.
Quote:
Unfortunately he was unable to directly compare it to Audyssey since his 8801 was at his other house.

hmm, first world problems I guess right? Lol
post #64990 of 70895
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post

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.

It is my experience that Audyssey simply cannot effectively deal with some severe bass problems. As an example, my brother-in-law's system sounded like crap with muddy bass and poor imaging. In other words, it was a turd and I could barely stand to listen to it while trying to give him a reassuring smile that his "Audyssey calibrated system" was sounding good:rolleyes:. The man is a perfectionist and he followed every Audyssey guideline to a tee. The problem was he had one sub, seating against a wall, and a resultant crappy FR curve that Audyssey simply could not deal with.

Until, that is, we added a second sub and optimized the sub positions with measuring gear. Still not a perfect FR curve, but much better. When we did a new Audyssey calibration it was like a new system. What a difference! Audyssey tightened things up remarkably. Bass was tight and imaging was fantastic.

What's my point here? You have a fixed sub position that is resulting in a FR that is clearly beyond Audyssey's ability to correct. It is your inherent problem, and I would wager that no correction system will effectively deal with it. I think your results are the product of rules of physics that are inherently uncorrectable electronically. If you want to have a system with superior SQ then adding a second sub is likely the only path to get there. Do that, THEN run Audyssey or your RC software of choice.
post #64991 of 70895
Well most serious enthusiasts understand Audyssey is not a cure all approach but icing on the cake after all forms of manual EQ such as speaker/sub placement and numerous scientifically placed room treatments
post #64992 of 70895
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlpowell84 View Post

Well most serious enthusiasts understand Audyssey is not a cure all approach but icing on the cake after all forms of manual EQ such as speaker/sub placement and numerous scientifically placed room treatments

Those that frequent this forum for sure. But tvrgeek clearly has unrealistic expectations of current RC technology.
post #64993 of 70895
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

I don't think there's any direct correction of Audyssey in the time domain either...but that doesn't mean that there isn't any benefit due to correction in the frequency domain due to the Fourier transform, or that there isn't a difference in what the benefit is between one RC correcting FR and another (i.e. ARC vs. XT32). "Almost 100%" and "100%" aren't the same thing...whether measuring bass decay or impulse response after room correction vs. before room correction is up to you

At least Dirac "claims" to have such a correction to impulse response, and the Trinnov description (from what they say about their ST2) says something about "working in the time domain to achieve a high resolution stereophonic image with well-focused phantom sources...The loudspeaker’s sound (including the early reflections) and the room (energy response) are separately equalized, opening up the listening window".

Take that for what it may be worth....

I believe separately equalized, when referring to Trinnov's literature, means that it's using IIR filters for the room (energy response) and FIR filters for the speaker and early reflections.I could be wrong though.

If Audyssey is looking at the impulse response and creating a filter to try and correct it ,does that qualify as "correcting in the time domain"? I always wondered about that.
post #64994 of 70895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post

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.


 

There's nothing there that I can see that would prevent XT32 from giving you a reasonable result. I’d measure the room first to see what I'd be dealing with, acoustically. Then I'd move things around as far as possible, while measuring, to ensure that speakers, sub and MLP were as optimal as I could get them. Then I'd run Audyssey. Then I’d measure again. Then I'd listen with a variety of familiar content. Then I’d report back here smile.gif

Note that the subwoofer is built into the wall above the TV. That'd be a little hard to move smile.gif

However, doesn't that place it on the midline of the room? Isn't that one of the worst locations for exciting standing waves? Especially if it's half-way between floor and ceiling. Or am I confused again?

Another reason for pictures, perhaps.

 

Yes, first thing I'd do is release the sub from a fixed position, especially one that is far from ideal. I think that any preconceived positions for speakers are a bad idea and they should always, room permitting, be flexible for placement, to give at least  the chance of good sound from the get-go, before Audyssey etc is attempted. I suspect that one of tvrgeek's problems is that he currently has an inherent bass problem which remains unresolved by placement or treatment and which is of a magnitude that is beyond the ability of Audyssey to correct.

post #64995 of 70895
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.

Not exactly.  Same house but, as configured, there was no straight-forward way to A/B the two setups.  Switching between them would have required the swapping of multiple, relatively inaccessible connections and the time/effort/attention required would have made it pointless. I did go from the Marantz to the Trinnov and, then, back to the Marantz.  The sound from the Trinnov was a significant advance on what I was getting from the Marantz/Audyssey setup and I am only now slowly adapting to the latter.  Whether that justifies the investment or not is, imho, more subjective than the sonic value.

post #64996 of 70895
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

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.

I don't think there's any direct correction of Audyssey in the time domain either...but that doesn't mean that there isn't any benefit due to correction in the frequency domain due to the Fourier transform, or that there isn't a difference in what the benefit is between one RC correcting FR and another (i.e. ARC vs. XT32). "Almost 100%" and "100%" aren't the same thing...whether measuring bass decay or impulse response after room correction vs. before room correction is up to you

 

 

What I meant was almost 100% of my time domain improvements have come from room treatments and speaker/sub placement and the other bit that makes up the 'almost' has come from simply improving the response in the frequency domain. IOW, virtually nothing, or indeed nothing, has come from Audyssey wrt to the time domain, other than as a consequence of what it has done in the frequency domain.

post #64997 of 70895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post
 
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.

Not exactly.  Same house but, as configured, there was no straight-forward way to A/B the two setups.  Switching between them would have required the swapping of multiple, relatively inaccessible connections and the time/effort/attention required would have made it pointless. I did go from the Marantz to the Trinnov and, then, back to the Marantz.  The sound from the Trinnov was a significant advance on what I was getting from the Marantz/Audyssey setup and I am only now slowly adapting to the latter.  Whether that justifies the investment or not is, imho, more subjective than the sonic value.

 

Have you made any form of comparative evaluation of ARC vs any of the others, Kal?

post #64998 of 70895
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

 
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.
Not exactly.  Same house but, as configured, there was no straight-forward way to A/B the two setups.  Switching between them would have required the swapping of multiple, relatively inaccessible connections and the time/effort/attention required would have made it pointless. I did go from the Marantz to the Trinnov and, then, back to the Marantz.  The sound from the Trinnov was a significant advance on what I was getting from the Marantz/Audyssey setup and I am only now slowly adapting to the latter.  Whether that justifies the investment or not is, imho, more subjective than the sonic value.

Have you made any form of comparative evaluation of ARC vs any of the others, Kal?
Not Kal, but IIRC, he did have an article comparing ARC to Audyssey and posted graphs as well. Although the Audyssey graphs 'looked' like there was slightly less ringing compared to ARC (and both were far better than No EQ), subjectively, he said they both sounded just as good.

***edited to add: Found it
http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround/1108mitr

What fascinated me was someone using REW to measure Trinnov (at least I think it was Trinnov), and the measured result showed what Audyssey claimed to be able to do, which was attenuate the first reflections. Unlike Audyssey, where exactly ZERO user measurements have ever replicated the pretty website graphs showing a reduced first reflection spike, the Trinnov measurement actually did show this. I still can't quite wrap my head around how this can be done electronically. In theory, if you send an antispike to cancel the spike, it can only work in one location in the room due to flight times of the direct and reflected sound, and in turn, you'd have to send an anti-antispike to cancel the antispike and...


Max
post #64999 of 70895
Quote:
In theory, if you send an antispike to cancel the spike, it can only work in one location in the room due to flight times of the direct and reflected sound, and in turn, you'd have to send an anti-antispike to cancel the antispike and...
But each subsequent one would be at a substantially lower sound level, quickly reaching inaudibility. The software designer probably could choose an arbitrary number of correction "spikes" to use and get a quite acceptable result. Or, more likely, the designer would choose a maximum delay time (in order to minimize both the overall audio processing delay and the amount of memory needed) and let that determine the number of (anti)spikes. Plenty of processing power and memory are probably some of the reasons Trinnov works so well, and cost cutting measures (minimizing the amount of available memory perhaps) might be why current Audyssey implementations don't actually remove first reflections very well.
post #65000 of 70895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

Quote:
In theory, if you send an antispike to cancel the spike, it can only work in one location in the room due to flight times of the direct and reflected sound, and in turn, you'd have to send an anti-antispike to cancel the antispike and...
But each subsequent one would be at a substantially lower sound level, quickly reaching inaudibility. The software designer probably could choose an arbitrary number of correction "spikes" to use and get a quite acceptable result. Or, more likely, the designer would choose a maximum delay time (in order to minimize both the overall audio processing delay and the amount of memory needed) and let that determine the number of (anti)spikes. Plenty of processing power and memory are probably some of the reasons Trinnov works so well, and cost cutting measures (minimizing the amount of available memory perhaps) might be why current Audyssey implementations don't actually remove first reflections very well.
The issue that I can't wrap my head around is that I can comprehend it working on say, a click that sounds every 4 seconds, but for continuous music?


Max
post #65001 of 70895
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

 
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.
Not exactly.  Same house but, as configured, there was no straight-forward way to A/B the two setups.  Switching between them would have required the swapping of multiple, relatively inaccessible connections and the time/effort/attention required would have made it pointless. I did go from the Marantz to the Trinnov and, then, back to the Marantz.  The sound from the Trinnov was a significant advance on what I was getting from the Marantz/Audyssey setup and I am only now slowly adapting to the latter.  Whether that justifies the investment or not is, imho, more subjective than the sonic value.

Have you made any form of comparative evaluation of ARC vs any of the others, Kal?
Not Kal, but IIRC, he did have an article comparing ARC to Audyssey and posted graphs as well. Although the Audyssey graphs 'looked' like there was slightly less ringing compared to ARC (and both were far better than No EQ), subjectively, he said they both sounded just as good.

***edited to add: Found it
http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround/1108mitr

What fascinated me was someone using REW to measure Trinnov (at least I think it was Trinnov), and the measured result showed what Audyssey claimed to be able to do, which was attenuate the first reflections. Unlike Audyssey, where exactly ZERO user measurements have ever replicated the pretty website graphs showing a reduced first reflection spike, the Trinnov measurement actually did show this. I still can't quite wrap my head around how this can be done electronically. In theory, if you send an antispike to cancel the spike, it can only work in one location in the room due to flight times of the direct and reflected sound, and in turn, you'd have to send an anti-antispike to cancel the antispike and...


Max

 

Thanks Max - have read Kal's article now. As you say, ARC/Audyssey score equally well so perhaps that ends my enthusiasm for Anthem, short-lived as it was :)

 

Like you, I struggle with the idea that something is able to influence the sound after it has left the speaker.

post #65002 of 70895
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Thanks Max - have read Kal's article now. As you say, ARC/Audyssey score equally well so perhaps that ends my enthusiasm for Anthem, short-lived as it was smile.gif

Like you, I struggle with the idea that something is able to influence the sound after it has left the speaker.



What your not willing to shell out approx £15,000 for the 3D version of the D2v? eek.gif
I don't blame you there! That was an old article (but a good one) and I'm wondering if there's a head to head comparisons of ARC and XT32.
post #65003 of 70895
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Thanks Max - have read Kal's article now. As you say, ARC/Audyssey score equally well so perhaps that ends my enthusiasm for Anthem, short-lived as it was smile.gif

Like you, I struggle with the idea that something is able to influence the sound after it has left the speaker.



What your not willing to shell out approx £15,000 for the 3D version of the D2v? eek.gif
I don't blame you there! That was an old article (but a good one) and I'm wondering if there's a head to head comparisons of ARC and XT32.

 

I can restrain myself these days from swapping perfectly good gear for other perfectly good gear on a regular basis :)  I still think the Anthem MRX300 would make a cracking pre-pro though ;)

post #65004 of 70895
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I can restrain myself these days from swapping perfectly good gear for other perfectly good gear on a regular basis smile.gif  I still think the Anthem MRX300 would make a cracking pre-pro though wink.gif



That's great but an area I'm still working on. For that price my constraint is much easier to follow through with. I agree and possibly one of the only brands I would replace my Marantz with, but I won't upgrade for quite awhile, I have other areas I'm upgrading one by one. You know I could have picked a cheaper hobby but I don't know how I could match the thrill of being this broke and this happy at the same time biggrin.gif
post #65005 of 70895
Measurement is exactly how I started. That is how the sub moved from the corner to being mounted in a thin cabinet high on the front wall exactly between the mains. Really smoothed out some of the null issues. If you can't do multiple subs, then exact canter is by far the best position.

Am I picky? Well, pay for something, I expect to get what was advertised.. Do I expect perfection? Heck no. I am an engineer. I know what this system is trying to do. I have dealt with DSP issues for a living. I have been building speakers for a hobby for 35 years, so I am well versed in room measurement and tuning. Here is no excuse for the results Audessey implemented just as there is no excuse for still having the HDMI switching issues as I had with the Outlaw and Emotiva.

As this is not a dedicated movie room built from scratch, things can't move around much. I did measurements and critical listening before I started. That is why I wanted to try Audessey in the first place. I knew I had a few issues I wanted to deal with.

So where I ended up is using the lower 8 bands of an old Ross 31 band "pro" equalizer in the line to the sub. I am knocking down the main mode by 12 dB, and giving a little tilt below that. It gives a generally flat profile, but of course has all the small monopolizes that are intrinisisc to any specific room. Thees ate the things Audessey advertiser it can handle. I may black box this just to have one less big box on the shelf. For the frequencies covered, the Ross does not add any audible distortion. I would never use it on the mains.

Th absorbers work from about 2000 up. They are DYI affairs made with three inches of compressed FG board. They cover about 1/4 of the front wall. The crossover was tuned specifically for this room modifying the BSC and tilt. If I smooth the measured response to about 1/3 octave, they are within a few db from 200 up to the HF rolloff above 10K. Imaging is fantastic.

All said and done, for a couple month head ache and about two grant total cost, I have no better sound ans one less remote control. All the promises of the new audio equipment failed. The new Xantech IR stuff is more solid, the oppo is wonderful as is the 55 inch Vizio.

There is one high end store left in Baltimore, but they focus on stereo only. No AV. That I use a CD player instead of a platter was enough for them to cop an attitude last time I was there. We have one local chain, but they won;t pull stuff off the shelf to demonstrate it. We also have the big yellow box who won;t demonstrate anything. "Against company policy". There may be one store left in N. Va, but have not made it over there.
post #65006 of 70895
Of course, you have to wait for the 310. No more 300's. Their amps are nothing to sneeze about. I really wanted to try ARC when Audessey so totally failed, but I am not waiting for 3 months for the 310.
The NAD amps sound pretty good for a receiver too. I think my older Denon was a slight warmer.

I wish you could get the preamp section of something like the MXR300 and not pay for 5 or 7 small amps you don't need, but they force you to flagship price boxes for a preamp. Even the Marantz AV5007 was vast overkill for what I needed and too big. If it were not for the Audessey issues, I would have kept it. Could D&M make a killing if they took the x4000 and stripped out the power amps, leaving a full feature preamp for $700 and tried to leverage Marantz as prestige for a grand more? Instead they seem to think we will buy the same preamp for more than the cost of the receiver.

Man I wish the Emotiva had worked.
post #65007 of 70895
The problem with that AVR is you get the stripped down version of ARC, from what I have heard.
post #65008 of 70895
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
 

I can restrain myself these days from swapping perfectly good gear for other perfectly good gear on a regular basis :) ...

For some time now I somewhat surprisingly have found myself in a similar state of mind-and it's a relief!:) 

 

With Audyssey XT32 and the Pro kit, dual high-performance subs and great speakers, I'm loving the resultant SQ. I'm convinced that the biggest limiting factor for me is my nondedicated HT/music fam room, with its limited placement options and lack of formal acoustic treatments. 

 

To get any further significant SQ improvements I'd need to go down the more accurate and sophisticated measuring rabbit hole with REW, add acoustic treatments, possibly PEQ, etc.  

 

My read on current alternative automated DSP RC systems is that anything likely to do any better with my room as is would be prohibitively expensive.

post #65009 of 70895
Question about a Pro Cal (have a 3313ci) and XT32.

Chad B did my display, and also offers a Audyssey Pro service. I was considering buying a second VTF15H, then next time Chad does a touchup have him perform the Pro cal with the 3313ci. Other option is upgrade the AVR and get XT32. IMO, getting the sub, getting the pro cal, and keeping the 3313ci is the better move. I have zero complaints about the AVR, but looking for suggestions.
post #65010 of 70895
Depending on what he would charge for the Pro Cal (avg being $400-$500), between the two choices you are considering (ie. 3313CI+Pro Cal vs. XT32 AVR upgrade), most would agree you would be much better served selling the 3313CI and putting the sale money into a new XT32 model (eg. the 3313CI successor Denon X4000 with XT32) as the upgrade to XT32 would be more significant than XT+Pro Cal. The X4000 also includes Audyssey Sub EQ HT for dual sub level and delay calibration as well.

Additionally, the X4000 would offer the following new features ...

X4000 vs 3313CI:
Pro: Network diagnostics; Input Assign (analog audio inputs); Expandable to 9CH w/external 2CH amp; MultEQ XT32, Sub EQ HT (dual subs); 11.2 main zone pre-outs; Audyssey LFC, DTS Neo:X (9.2); Audyssey DSX (9.2); HDMI Video Select (USB, Tuner, Network + CD + Phono); InstaPreview (HDMI – 2D); Zone 2 HDMI Audio (Through/PCM – PCM 2.0 to Zone 2 speaker posts/pre-outs); Optical/Coax digital PCM 2.0  Zones 2/3; All Zone Stereo (Zones 2/3); 2nd Analog Devices DSP
Con: None
Edited by jdsmoothie - 9/15/13 at 10:11am
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)