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 2169

post #65041 of 70900
I found the aix calibration quite useful for setting the phase of a 7.1 system. The results were in synchrony with my Marantz Audyssey results.

Another check I did was with my phonic paa3. Setting each speaker with this to positive is a good gut check.
post #65042 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Where is your main seating location?

I really need a nice diagram - i will add to my TO DO list.

Room is 29 x 22 x 8 or 5062 cu ft with carpet.

I wanted to avoid primary listening position (PLP) being in the dead center soooo ...

System is along the long wall but not in the center of long wall - it is closer to the right wall.
The rear of components (TV, speakers, electronics etc) are about 20" from the wall so i can walk around back there smile.gif
PLP is 11 ft from front (long) wall and 9 ft from the right wall, 20 ft from left wall.
Rear of speakers are 20" from front wall.
Right sub is in right corner 16" from both walls (long wall and right wall).
Left sub is 16" from front wall and 11 ft from left wall.

Even though right sub is in the corner, it got -3.5 and left sub got -4.5 but i don't think i got them both at exactly 75 dB before i started xt32.
post #65043 of 70900
A diagram showing what limitations you are working with would be very helpful. For example, not having everything centered left to right opens up a lot of complexities. Reflections from one wall will be arriving at a different time as refections from the other wall. Is this a dedicated room, or are there other considerations that dictate this asymmetric layout?
post #65044 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by bao01 View Post

I wanted to avoid primary listening position (PLP) being in the dead center


Seriously, why?
post #65045 of 70900
Is it a correct result if audyssey changes the natural tone of a speaker?

The only thing I seem to win by using audyssey is a wider soundstage (which is awesome, but...) but seem to lose a bit of clarity, a tiny bit of control and truckload of "meat" in the midrange. My LCR goes from natural to sounding like they are placed in a bucket.

Is there a way to get the wide soundstage without audyssey, or is there a way to deal with my "issue"?
post #65046 of 70900

^Not if the change is for the worse.  Sorry you're still struggling to get a good result with XT in your NAD AVP.   Based on your earlier posts, you have nice MK speakers in a dedicated, treated room and use XTZ to measure and analyze so you should not expect or accept the SQ you're getting now.

 

First, as to getting a nice wide soundstage without Audyssey, that indeed is a desirable goal as that will improve your SQ both with and without Audyssey.  It is a general accepted axiom that one first optimizes the baseline SQ without Audyssey and that will yield a better end result with Audyssey.  I would imagine you know that achieving a nice wide soundstage is accomplished by careful placement of FR/L speakers in relation to each other, the walls and MLP-and  acoustic treatments at first reflection points can have a profound effect as well. 

 

I suggest you post some photos, a diagram of the layout with measurements and if you can, some XTZ measurements with and without Audyssey, so the experts here can have more data to work with so as to offer up more specific suggestions. 

 

Above and beyond the troubleshooting, let me add a bit about my experience with XT with my gear at the time (Denon AVR 4310 and Dali Helicon 400 FR/L) and my room (untreated non-dedicated family rm).  Prior to running Audyssey I set up the speakers and MLP so I had a nice wide soundstage with very good detail and imaging.  However, the room was causing awful, boomy uneven bass that made it very difficult to "listen-through" to hear the detail available in the best recordings.  The great benefit of XT for me was taming the room's bass, which provided far more balanced sound overall.  The cost was some loss of precise imaging and fine detail (cymbal decay, room ambiance/reverb) when critically listening to those best recordings with XT.  Not the effects you describe, but attributable to the limitations of XT and not inconsistent with reports of some "Audiophile" Audyssey-haters.  When I upgraded to XT32 in the AVR 4311, the bass was even better controlled, there was no longer the loss of  fine detail and overall SQ took a very nice step up.  Most everyone reports improvements from XT to XT32, as XT32 has successfully implemented several significant improvements and so in effect addressed some of XT's inherent limitations.

 

If I had your speakers and room, I'd be looking for a nice AVP with XT32 and Audyssey Pro capability. That is the best Audyssey has to offer and is well worth it IMO.


Edited by SoundofMind - 9/18/13 at 5:58am
post #65047 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

A diagram showing what limitations you are working with would be very helpful. For example, not having everything centered left to right opens up a lot of complexities. Reflections from one wall will be arriving at a different time as refections from the other wall. Is this a dedicated room, or are there other considerations that dictate this asymmetric layout?

I will make the diagram.
There are few limitations - I can put PLP pretty much anywhere.
But I would like to keep system along the long wall just because of windows.
I can easily center it along the long wall.
I offset the system along long wall because i thought i read somewhere (website or JL Audio sub user guide) that the exact center of a rectangular room should be avoided for PLP because it will have more nulls and peaks compared to other spots in the room.
Also, I like to sit about 7' away from 65" plasma. I can move seat further back when listening to music.
post #65048 of 70900
Sitting in the center of the room between the two side walls is acceptable, and even desirable, because of the symmetry of sound reflections. You want to avoid sitting in the middle with respect to the front and back walls. If I were starting from scratch, I would first try the equilateral triangle approach for the left and right speakers, and the MLP. Measurements and listening tests will reveal if this is an acceptable layout. This would also allow you to sit as close to the TV display as you want to, and simply adjust the other dimensions accordingly.
post #65049 of 70900
When I first delved into HT a couple of years ago, I for the most part randomly set the gain on my sub amp at 9 o'clock. It just sounded good there, and "seemed" like a good spot. This was all new to me. Audyssey set the sub trim in the receiver at -11. I was told I could adjust the trim in the receiver a bit for more bass, I think I ended up adjusting it to around -5. I really enjoyed the sound from the sub (eD A3-250), however, in the past 6-9 months have been having problems with the driver and amp. Several others have been having problems with their eD drivers taking out their amps. I'm guess this was partly to blame, I'm also thinking I may had been overpowering it?? I sent the amp to Daveds50 (HIGHLY recommend if you need your amp fixed), and also replaced the driver with an Infinity Reference. In the meantime, I've been reading up on this thread, and see it sounds like the idea is to continuously lower the gain on the sub amp and re-run Audyssey until the sub trim in the receiver is in the -3.5 to 3.5 range. At roughly 7 o'clock I have it reading -1.5.

My questions are, first, that should be it right? Just leave it alone? I haven't had a chance to listen to it much yet, but will turning the gain on the sub amp down that much cause a noticeable difference in the thunderous bass I'm used to, or does the new trim setting basically balance that out? Second question...with the old settings, I typically watched movies with the master volume on the receiver at around -5 to -7 before it became too loud. I watched World War Z last night and had it at 0, and it didn't seem too loud. My understanding is that the Audyssey settings are set to as if you are watching at 0, correct? I know movies sometimes vary between too loud and not loud enough at a certain volume. Say the next few movies I watch I have to have the master volume at around -3 to -5. Does this mean I should bump up the trim a few notches accordingly, since I am no longer listening at 0, or leave it at -1.5? I hope all of that makes sense, still trying to learn how this all works together. Thank you!
post #65050 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by bao01 View Post

I offset the system along long wall because i thought i read somewhere (website or JL Audio sub user guide) that the exact center of a rectangular room should be avoided for PLP because it will have more nulls and peaks compared to other spots in the room.
They're correct: midpoint of room width (and length) has the greatest variation in frequency response (biggest nulls & peaks). But that can be ameliorated with subwoofer and speaker placement, allowing you to maintain left vs right symmetry AND have a smoother frequency response (across your entire seating area). Once you post the diagram, we can tackle placement.
post #65051 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace2377 View Post

My questions are, first, that should be it right? Just leave it alone? I haven't had a chance to listen to it much yet, but will turning the gain on the sub amp down that much cause a noticeable difference in the thunderous bass I'm used to, or does the new trim setting basically balance that out? Second question...with the old settings, I typically watched movies with the master volume on the receiver at around -5 to -7 before it became too loud. I watched World War Z last night and had it at 0, and it didn't seem too loud. My understanding is that the Audyssey settings are set to as if you are watching at 0, correct? I know movies sometimes vary between too loud and not loud enough at a certain volume. Say the next few movies I watch I have to have the master volume at around -3 to -5. Does this mean I should bump up the trim a few notches accordingly, since I am no longer listening at 0, or leave it at -1.5? I hope all of that makes sense, still trying to learn how this all works together. Thank you!

 

Your trims are fine. The control on the sub is a gain control not a volume control, so wherever you set it, the sub can still deliver 100% of its rated output - it just does it from more, or less, input depending where the gain control is set. Audyssey attempts to calibrate your system to movie Reference Level. This is 85dB average, 105dB peaks and 115dB peaks for the LFE channel.  If your system can play this loud, cleanly, then you will achieve these SPLs with a MV setting of 0dB.

 

Some more info is in these FAQ answers:

 

a)3.   I keep reading about Reference Level'. What is it?

 

f)4.    If I want to run my subs a little 'hot' where should I make the changes?

post #65052 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace2377 View Post

When I first delved into HT a couple of years ago, I for the most part randomly set the gain on my sub amp at 9 o'clock. It just sounded good there, and "seemed" like a good spot. This was all new to me. Audyssey set the sub trim in the receiver at -11. I was told I could adjust the trim in the receiver a bit for more bass, I think I ended up adjusting it to around -5. I really enjoyed the sound from the sub (eD A3-250), however, in the past 6-9 months have been having problems with the driver and amp. Several others have been having problems with their eD drivers taking out their amps. I'm guess this was partly to blame, I'm also thinking I may had been overpowering it?? I sent the amp to Daveds50 (HIGHLY recommend if you need your amp fixed), and also replaced the driver with an Infinity Reference. In the meantime, I've been reading up on this thread, and see it sounds like the idea is to continuously lower the gain on the sub amp and re-run Audyssey until the sub trim in the receiver is in the -3.5 to 3.5 range. At roughly 7 o'clock I have it reading -1.5.

My questions are, first, that should be it right? Just leave it alone? I haven't had a chance to listen to it much yet, but will turning the gain on the sub amp down that much cause a noticeable difference in the thunderous bass I'm used to, or does the new trim setting basically balance that out? Second question...with the old settings, I typically watched movies with the master volume on the receiver at around -5 to -7 before it became too loud. I watched World War Z last night and had it at 0, and it didn't seem too loud. My understanding is that the Audyssey settings are set to as if you are watching at 0, correct? I know movies sometimes vary between too loud and not loud enough at a certain volume. Say the next few movies I watch I have to have the master volume at around -3 to -5. Does this mean I should bump up the trim a few notches accordingly, since I am no longer listening at 0, or leave it at -1.5? I hope all of that makes sense, still trying to learn how this all works together. Thank you!

Do you have any type of an spl meter or mic to test your results to see what might have transpired with the audyssey calibration and your system? Odds are that your new calibration has set the speakers a little lower overall, or possibly dealt with a pesky peak in the response that caused it to sound "loud" at your previous viewing level of -5 to -7. Perhaps this time the peak was taken care of so now the sound is more coherent and smooth, therefore allowing you to feel "comfortable" at a higher overall level.
post #65053 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Sitting in the center of the room between the two side walls is acceptable, and even desirable, because of the symmetry of sound reflections. You want to avoid sitting in the middle with respect to the front and back walls. If I were starting from scratch, I would first try the equilateral triangle approach for the left and right speakers, and the MLP. Measurements and listening tests will reveal if this is an acceptable layout. This would also allow you to sit as close to the TV display as you want to, and simply adjust the other dimensions accordingly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

They're correct: midpoint of room width (and length) has the greatest variation in frequency response (biggest nulls & peaks). But that can be ameliorated with subwoofer and speaker placement, allowing you to maintain left vs right symmetry AND have a smoother frequency response (across your entire seating area). Once you post the diagram, we can tackle placement.


So does XT32 try to fix wall reflections at all? Sorry - this is probably in the FAQ. I will read now. redface.gif

Also, i should be able to get to my first REW graphs this weekend if all goes well.
post #65054 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by bao01 View Post


So does XT32 try to fix wall reflections at all? Sorry - this is probably in the FAQ. I will read now. redface.gif

 

 

This is an area of some controversy. Audyssey say they correct in the time domain as well as in the frequency domain. Some of us don't believe this totally. Those skeptics believe that what Audyssey does in the time domain is simply a by-product of what it does in the frequency domain, and certainly when I personally have taken measurements of my room, I cannot see any evidence that Audyssey is doing any significant independent time domain correction. Some people also struggle to understand how Audyssey, or any electronic room EQ system, can influence the sound after it has left the speaker. Other people, however, can put forward various hypotheses as to how this can indeed happen. So, you pays your money and you takes your choice...

 

The best way to deal with reflections is first to use REW to analyse the room and see just what you are dealing with. You can then use the 'mirror trick', or the more sophisticated 'string trick' to discover where the reflections are coming from and you can then treat the room with acoustic panels in order to tame the reflections you do not want. There is also much controversy about which, if any reflections, are desirable and which are not. Some people, who listen to music a lot with their m/ch systems say that early reflections add to spaciousness. Others (me for example) insist that all the spaciousness I need is already 'baked into' a m/ch recording so I don't need the room to go adding more. But then I only listen to movies in my HT, so that will be a significant issue compared with those who have a multi-purpose, music/movie space. FWIW, what I have found is that, by eliminating or seriously reducing, reflections in my HT I have made a huge and immediately observable difference to the quality of imaging, which became pin-point precise after I added treatments and also improved dialogue intelligibility to the point where I no longer have any movies where dialogue is an issue. As I say, others will have a different view.

post #65055 of 70900
All versions of Audyssey MultEQ do CLAIM to fix reflections. It's one of the core benefits claimed by the company as an advantage of MultEQ vs other room correction techs. You can see it right up front on the MultEQ product page: http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/multeq

However AFAIK nobody has been able to reproduce an impulse response graph corroborating that result. Doesn't mean it isn't happening, as it could be a failure of measurement technique.
post #65056 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

All versions of Audyssey MultEQ do CLAIM to fix reflections. It's one of the core benefits claimed by the company as an advantage of MultEQ vs other room correction techs. You can see it right up front on the MultEQ product page: http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/multeq

However AFAIK nobody has been able to reproduce an impulse response graph corroborating that result. Doesn't mean it isn't happening, as it could be a failure of measurement technique.

 

Count me in that group. While I can easily believe that Audyssey can create inverse filters that can work all manner of magic on signals before they get to the speaker, and that those inverse filters can easily (theoretically) compensate for the ups and downs of frequency response measured as part of the calibration process, I find it really hard to grasp how Audyssey claim to do anything worthwhile with the sound once it has left the speaker and hit the wall and been reflected. Even if they observe these reflections in the measuring process (the chirping) and even if they create measures to counteract them, once the system plays back the corrected sound, it will still hit the wall and reflect off it. Acoustic treatments are an easy and effective way to deal with reflections, but I admit this is relevant only where WAF is supportive and/or one has a dedicated room.

post #65057 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

This is an area of some controversy. Audyssey say they correct in the time domain as well as in the frequency domain. Some of us don't believe this totally. Those skeptics believe that what Audyssey does in the time domain is simply a by-product of what it does in the frequency domain, and certainly when I personally have taken measurements of my room, I cannot see any evidence that Audyssey is doing any significant independent time domain correction. Some people also struggle to understand how Audyssey, or any electronic room EQ system, can influence the sound after it has left the speaker. Other people, however, can put forward various hypotheses as to how this can indeed happen. So, you pays your money and you takes your choice...

The best way to deal with reflections is first to use REW to analyse the room and see just what you are dealing with. You can then use the 'mirror trick', or the more sophisticated 'string trick' to discover where the reflections are coming from and you can then treat the room with acoustic panels in order to tame the reflections you do not want. There is also much controversy about which, if any reflections, are desirable and which are not. Some people, who listen to music a lot with their m/ch systems say that early reflections add to spaciousness. Others (me for example) insist that all the spaciousness I need is already 'baked into' a m/ch recording so I don't need the room to go adding more. But then I only listen to movies in my HT, so that will be a significant issue compared with those who have a multi-purpose, music/movie space. FWIW, what I have found is that, by eliminating or seriously reducing, reflections in my HT I have made a huge and immediately observable difference to the quality of imaging, which became pin-point precise after I added treatments and also improved dialogue intelligibility to the point where I no longer have any movies where dialogue is an issue. As I say, others will have a different view.

Sorry - maybe the following is like religion or politics and has already been debated (argued?) ad nauseum in this thread.
But ...

If one put enough time and effort into getting really experienced/knowledgeable about REW analysis and room treatments etc, could it possibly be better to turn Audyssey off completely and JUST use your own measurements and room treatments?

Or is using both the best approach?
post #65058 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

All versions of Audyssey MultEQ do CLAIM to fix reflections. It's one of the core benefits claimed by the company as an advantage of MultEQ vs other room correction techs. You can see it right up front on the MultEQ product page: http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/multeq

However AFAIK nobody has been able to reproduce an impulse response graph corroborating that result. Doesn't mean it isn't happening, as it could be a failure of measurement technique.

I can do that! I vaguely remember seeing better results in the impulse response after audyssey has run, and the waterfall graph does reflect this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bao01 View Post

Sorry - maybe the following is like religion or politics and has already been debated (argued?) ad nauseum in this thread.
But ...

If one put enough time and effort into getting really experienced/knowledgeable about REW analysis and room treatments etc, could it possibly be better to turn Audyssey off completely and JUST use your own measurements and room treatments?

Or is using both the best approach?

Yep, it can. I have gotten my room to the point where th difference between audyssey on and off is minimal. At the start though, it was almost unbearable without audyssey.
post #65059 of 70900
Quote:
Some people also struggle to understand how Audyssey, or any electronic room EQ system, can influence the sound after it has left the speaker

Quite simple really. Let's break it down. Speakers are designed to measure "Flat" in groundplane or anechoic space. That is how they are built and tested. Now there are many out there that are "Voiced" to add a sonic signature that that manufacturer deems prefereable to the end user and/or their design/listening engineers. But for the sake of simplicity, lets take a high quality speaker, that is simply designed flat (JTR, Seaton, Danley, etc). The speaker once placed in a room, ANY room, will be far from flat. Did anything change with the speaker itself? NO!!! So you could already say the sound has ALREADY been influenced after it has left the speaker.

So what does audyssey do? DSP aka Digital SIGNAL processing!!!!! It reads the response that the room has helped to create at the MLP. It takes this response, and inverses the SIGNAL where it needs to to correct for these room reflections and the end result is a far from flat response at that point coming from the speaker. It then reacts with the room around it and ends up yielding a flat response IN ROOM.
post #65060 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Count me in that group. While I can easily believe that Audyssey can create inverse filters that can work all manner of magic on signals before they get to the speaker, and that those inverse filters can easily (theoretically) compensate for the ups and downs of frequency response measured as part of the calibration process, I find it really hard to grasp how Audyssey claim to do anything worthwhile with the sound once it has left the speaker and hit the wall and been reflected. Even if they observe these reflections in the measuring process (the chirping) and even if they create measures to counteract them, once the system plays back the corrected sound, it will still hit the wall and reflect off it. Acoustic treatments are an easy and effective way to deal with reflections, but I admit this is relevant only where WAF is supportive and/or one has a dedicated room.

Thanks for acknowledging that, even though it's a handicap to achieving true "audio nirvana" if you have limited or no ability to use acoustic treatments. And to bao01, yes, it's like religion and politics IMO. More like kabbala as you get further into the rabbit hole...but without Mila Kunis as your companion..smile.gif

The more hands-on among us discount REQ except as "icing on the cake", with the ideal being that we can arrange our room such that REQ may no longer be needed as our learning increases, or strictly as an automated tool to achieve correction that we can't despite much effort. After all, at the end of the day, Audyssey is simply an automated tool that may have high resolution filters, but the parameters of those filters, the correction applied, and the methodology to achieve a particular curve is a fixed, automated process with only a few points of interaction with the user. Being able to manipulate acoustic treatments gives us the ultimate in user control, but it's NOT easy and certainly more time intensive than an eight position Audyssey run.

If you don't mind some generalizing, many if not most Audyssey users on AVS don't use many treatments, have compromised and/or non-dedicated rooms of one form or another, and likely don't conduct external measurements of their calibrations. They set and forget once they like what they hear, and tweak speakers and AVRs ahead of room treatments. That's the other ehxtreme.

For others that aren't in the hard-core treatment camp, placement and electronic-based room correction are the primary tools we have to work with our room. Clearly rigorous application of treatments is the ideal (and is the objective of the more sophisticated followers of the REW thread, once they get measurement skills down). They should be exhaustively used unless there's no other choice before any REQ is applied. But not all of us have rooms we can reconfigure and tweak iteratively to maximize treatment use, and not all of us live alone or have a room that's essentially our own room to use as our audio laboratory. I know I don't, but that doesn't mean that I don't value treatments.

When we eventually move to a larger place, I'm going to put having a dedicated HT space as a priority, if not a tiebreaker, for what we buy (that's really where WAF comes in!), hopefully start from scratch with a basic setup and keep it not for human use until I can get treatments down. Then I can follow in the footsteps of the AVS pioneers LOL....and we can have beast as our role model!
Edited by sdrucker - 9/19/13 at 12:30pm
post #65061 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by bao01 View Post
 
 
Sorry - maybe the following is like religion or politics and has already been debated (argued?) ad nauseum in this thread.
But ...

If one put enough time and effort into getting really experienced/knowledgeable about REW analysis and room treatments etc, could it possibly be better to turn Audyssey off completely and JUST use your own measurements and room treatments?

Or is using both the best approach?

 

With a lot of time and effort and knowledge it is possible to EQ a room to at least as good as Xt32 can do it. But most would probably agree that the best approach is to get the room as good as possible, using proper speaker and sub placement, and acoustic treatments, and then run Audyssey as the "icing on the cake". There are invariably room issues that can never be fully resolved, due to WAF or physical constraints etc, but getting it as good as possible and then 'finishing off' with Audyssey is a great approach.

post #65062 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

All versions of Audyssey MultEQ do CLAIM to fix reflections. It's one of the core benefits claimed by the company as an advantage of MultEQ vs other room correction techs. You can see it right up front on the MultEQ product page: http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/multeq

However AFAIK nobody has been able to reproduce an impulse response graph corroborating that result. Doesn't mean it isn't happening, as it could be a failure of measurement technique.

I can do that! I vaguely remember seeing better results in the impulse response after audyssey has run, and the waterfall graph does reflect this.
 
 

 

So do my waterfalls. But the improvement all seems to stem from the improvements in the frequency domain.

post #65063 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

So do my waterfalls. But the improvement all seems to stem from the improvements in the frequency domain.

You might find this explanation of what Audyssey allegedly does with "spatial correction" interesting, although you're probably familiar with it, Keith:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1366849/datasat-rs20i-beta-test-and-comparison-with-ada-rhapsody-trinnov-teq-12/570#post_21872728
post #65064 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by bao01 View Post

Sorry - maybe the following is like religion or politics and has already been debated (argued?) ad nauseum in this thread.
But ...

If one put enough time and effort into getting really experienced/knowledgeable about REW analysis and room treatments etc, could it possibly be better to turn Audyssey off completely and JUST use your own measurements and room treatments?

Or is using both the best approach?

If your room was shaped correctly, your speakers correctly positioned in the room, your listening position was in the best location, you used multiple subs, everything calibrated correctly and you used the correct treatments in the correct locations, then yes, you could get sound as good or better than what Audyssey can do. Now when you can't meet all of those requirements and most of us can't, then Audyssey is a big help. smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #65065 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by bao01 View Post

So does XT32 try to fix wall reflections at all?
Despite what their marketing says, that's not physically possible (for any room EQ system, automated or manual). There are things that reflections do (e.g., image shift) that are outside the scope of equalization. So what equalization tries to do is address the frequency response changes that occur due to reflections. If it can remove at least that one distortion, then you're hearing more of your speakers and less of the room. Some improvement is better than no improvement.
post #65066 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

However AFAIK nobody has been able to reproduce an impulse response graph corroborating that result. Doesn't mean it isn't happening, as it could be a failure of measurement technique.

I also have not been able to reproduce impulse response graph as shown on the Audyssey site and really doubt it can be done at all (without harmful tricks). But I have been able to to see a measurable improvement in minimum-phase response that makes the waves of different frequencies more coherent and arriving at equal group-delay to the ear. This is for the single speaker, but this is also true for multiple speakers as each becomes coherent with all others and that makes imaging of sounds coming from in between speakers more focused.
post #65067 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

But I have been able to to see a measurable improvement in minimum-phase response that makes the waves of different frequencies more coherent and arriving at equal group-delay to the ear.

Could you please post those graphs?
post #65068 of 70900
I think the best try to compare all main sound managment/callibration softwares in market (use google translate or other tools): http://www.ixbt.com/multimedia/acoustics-correction.shtml
post #65069 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by IcetomLT View Post

I think the best try to compare all main sound managment/callibration softwares in market (use google translate or other tools): http://www.ixbt.com/multimedia/acoustics-correction.shtml

Yep, I just wanted to post it too smile.gif
post #65070 of 70900
Quote:
Originally Posted by urwi View Post

Could you please post those graphs?

I thought I've posted them already here smile.gif But looks like not, so copying graphs from the original post (also in russian, from those talks the above mentioned article is started):
Direct
XT32
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)