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 2249

post #67441 of 70896
For those who listen to 2-channel music e.g. CD's, do you use Audyssey? I can't quite make up my mind, but I'm sort of preferring the "bypass L/R" option. From what I've read, this doesn't apply any EQ to the front speakers, but it still flatten the bass curve. I just got a Marantz 1403 so I'm still new to this type of thing. I find that with the Audyssey curve applied, the music sounds crystal clear but there also seems to be a little too much treble for my taste. I'm listening through Polk TSi400's, which already seem a little on the bright side, so I don't really want to accentuate that. When I switch to "L/R bypass" it seems to take the edge off and to me, the speakers produce a fuller sound.

I would listen in "pure" or "pure direct" but my speakers aren't full range, and in these two modes it doesn't seem like the sub produces any sound.
post #67442 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

The implied problem with XT (or lower) at the higher frequencies AIUI was that it was too coarse in its ability to correct, due to the lesser filter resolution, and thus it could end up creating one problem while trying to correct another. XT32, with its vastly increased resolution, can be much more precise at attacking a tiny problem without inadvertantly creating a new problem in the process. Sort of like trying to make a precise incision with a scalpel vs. a butter knife. XT32 can be so fine and precise with its corrections that it can more "gently" smooth and shape the high frequency response to meet the target curve without resultant artifacts.
That might be what Chris was implying, but I don't think that is the difference. XT32 is a philisophical departure from other versions of Audyssey. It isn't using a sharper scalpel to correct tiny problems in the higher frequencies; it's not correcting them at all. When you look at the graph of the correction filters that Jerry posted, what activity do you see in the high frequencies?

IF other versions of Audyssey were like XT32 but with less filter resolution or fewer taps, then I would buy the notion that some rooms can get away with the lesser versions of Audyssey. But that's not what's happening. Non-XT32 versions all attempt to correct at frequencies whose wavelengths are less than an inch long (as can be seen by the hair/grass in Jerry's graphs). Your ears are never going to be where those high frequency corrections line up with the problems they're correcting.
post #67443 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

That might be what Chris was implying, but I don't think that is the difference. XT32 is a philisophical departure from other versions of Audyssey. It isn't using a sharper scalpel to correct tiny problems in the higher frequencies; it's not correcting them at all. When you look at the graph of the correction filters that Jerry posted, what activity do you see in the high frequencies?

IF other versions of Audyssey were like XT32 but with less filter resolution or fewer taps, then I would buy the notion that some rooms can get away with the lesser versions of Audyssey. But that's not what's happening. Non-XT32 versions all attempt to correct at frequencies whose wavelengths are less than an inch long (as can be seen by the hair/grass in Jerry's graphs). Your ears are never going to be where those high frequency corrections line up with the problems they're correcting.

Sanjay,
Your mileage may differ, but at least on this chart I ran earlier this year, IMO a flavor of Audyssey XT32 (Pro, in my case) is still applying some beneficial correction to higher frequencies (e.g. above the MRC dip around 2 kHz). Not nearly as much as < 300 Hz, but still something more than 0.



The line in red is before Audyssey, and the line is blue is after Audyssey. You'll probably need to click on the chart to see my point.

On this comparison of L/R+Subs, using a standard full range plot at 1/6th smoothing and a 12 position Audyssey XT32 Pro run, to my eyes the curve is flatter between 3 and 4 kHz, and the rolloff is gentler above 8 kHz. Of course, I have Audyssey Pro, and I did a mild 2.5 db boost at 8.5 kHz after seeing my initial results (as per the CSV file I have from that calibration), but even so, I'd argue that I had a more pleasing sound in the HF with than without EQ, with more detail and a little more realistic treble sound from what I remember. The downside is that this particular correction was something I did almost a year ago, but it's what I used until I dug into the REW rabbit hole this fall.

Whether that 3 db or so difference in the results around that 3-4 KHz point counts as dramatic is debatable, but it shows that Audyssey XT32 (at least Pro) can be used to do at least some mild correction above the MRC.
Edited by sdrucker - 11/27/13 at 10:22pm
post #67444 of 70896
Sanjay - do you not remember this post from Igor which reframed the interpretation of those measurements?
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yes, this is one of the biggest improvements of XT32 over XT. As you know, there is a considerable body of opinion, including Geddes and Toole, which says that EQ above Schroeder is bad for various reasons.
Hey, we completely agree on the fact that the way how XT32 treats high frequencies is the biggest improvement over previous versions, but disagree on only one fact. What you call 'less correction by XT32' I call 'more error/noise by XT'. I've told already that XT32 really focuses on high frequencies more assigning considerable more resources to smooth the correction there. And now I've found good visual example showing how this work. Or actually how it is failing to work well for XT. It is in this paper: An EE’s Guide to Survival Between Microphone and Voice Coil. Look for 'DSP Filters For Loudspeakers'. This is good example how 'trivial' impulse-response correction works and what happens if we change listening position. You can see how the simple sharp fix to the reflection works where we are in sweet-spot and the same fix becomes just an added noise when we move out of sweet-spot. This is how XT and earlier versions work. They have limited number of taps that look like sharp spikes on the impulse response. XT32 have more 'spikes', putting them close to each other, so many more that there really no spikes anymore, the 'correction' is distributed in time, so, it works correctly for low frequencies that have big wave-length, and small shifts in distance are irrelevant there - we are still in-phase with the target, but high frequencies correction is really only done where it should be - very close to the initial impulse. So, XT32 does a lot more work for high frequencies reducing the error, while XT and below just leave high frequency error as is as they are limited in resources and those are spent already for low frequency correction - a few of FIR taps are distributed over much longer time than they would fill if they are all put in sequence with audio sampling frequency one after another without gaps in between. Those gaps are the reason of 'hair' on the frequency response graphs on high frequency. And it is my strong opinion that this shouldn't be called a high amount of correction, but a high amount of error. ХТ32 still does a lot while correcting high frequencies, even a lot more than traditional PEQ with 30/60/100++ bands of equalization would be able to do. But it doesn't let the error go into this range, reducing the added noise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Of course, for the frequencies below Schroeder, being much more omnidirectional in nature, with much, much bigger wavelengths, this isn't so much of an issue and electronic EQ can do a better job in that frequency region.
Surely - wavelengths are the key here and correcting electronically without enough care about high frequencies in time-domain blindly is bad. Even the most basic treatments will do it, and it will work independent of sweet-spot. But with XT, even if you have a perfect speaker and treat the room well, you still will have this 'hairs' after Audyssey filtering, and it is the one more confirmation it is wrong to call it a correction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

In my view, and I stress this is a personal view, Audyssey 'flavours' below XT32 are far less useful simply because they tend to do 'more harm than good' when trying to EQ above Schroeder. Users with XT, for example, frequently post in this thread that they do not like what XT does for the upper frequencies, whereas one rarely hears this from users of XT32.  If Gary is seeing 'considerable compensation' above Schroeder then he presumably has XT. 
Completely agree with you. For me the XT32 is the only Audyssey version that is ready for high-fidelity reproduction.
post #67445 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

It isn't using a sharper scalpel to correct tiny problems in the higher frequencies; it's not correcting them at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

Your mileage may differ, but at least on this chart I ran earlier this year, IMO a flavor of Audyssey XT32 (Pro, in my case) is still applying some beneficial correction to higher frequencies (e.g. above the MRC dip around 2 kHz).
I meant not correcting the tiny problems (hair/grass) at all. Should have worded that more clearly. I wasn't trying to say that it doesn't do any correction in the higher frequencies, since it is obvious from the filter graphs that it is shaping the overall response to the target curve.
post #67446 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Sanjay - do you not remember this post from Igor which reframed the interpretation of those measurements?
What I call correction in the high freqencies (grass in the XT filters) he calls errors in the high frequencies. That grass is there because it is trying to correct tiny problems that were measured.
post #67447 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post
 

Kal, your post inspired me to do a quick Advanced search.  Man, those were the days, check out this one: 7/8/10 http://www.avsforum.com/t/795421/official-audyssey-thread-faq-in-post-51779/28470#post_18876726

"It's late at night and only a few of you are still online, so I thought I would post some info on MultEQ XT 32.

This is the first public announcement from Audyssey and I felt that it would be appropriate to do it in this thread.

MultEQ XT 32 is a major new development in the MultEQ algorithm since the original release in 2004. It has been 2+ years in the making and the result of countless hours of algorithm development and some new math.

The main limitation in AVRs today is the available processing power in the DSP chips responsible for running all the digital algorithms. The chips are getting faster every year, but the algorithms coming out are greatly outpacing the chip evolution. Improvement in room correction performance can only come by increasing the resolution of the filters so that finer and finer details of the response can be captured and corrected. But, increasing the resolution means that we must take up more computational power in the chips. That was just not going to happen.

To get around this, we had to go way outside the box. It's not often that you ask: how can we make the algorithm compute more data, but take up fewer resources? That's what we have done with MultEQ XT 32. Using multiple sampling rates in the measurement and filter synthesis process we derived a method that increases the resolution of the MultEQ XT filters by a factor of 32 from what we have today. That gives it many thousands of individual control points with which to shape the response that it measures so that it can achieve the desired response.

This huge increase in resolution is applied equally to all channels including the subwoofer. The most obvious benefit will be in the low frequency range where it's needed the most.

Sadly, it is not something that can be applied as a firmware upgrade to past products from Audyssey or from our licensees. It's a completely new way of measuring and processing and so it will only be available in new products going forward."

 

More on XT32 vs XT:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/795421/official-audyssey-thread-faq-in-post-51779/34950#post_19848089

"The major difference is in the filter resolution. XT32 has 32 times more resolution and that means it can catch and correct narrower peaks and dips. This will result in a flatter response, particularly in the lower frequency range of the satellite speakers where many of the room problems are more serious.
As to whether one will notice the difference or not, that's impossible to predict...It depends on the problems and your... well... noticing ability "

 

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/795421/official-audyssey-thread-faq-in-post-51779/32940#post_19510787

Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Chris,
Did the "target curve" change at all with XT32? It seems like my Integra DHC-80.2 has more high frequency energy and transparency than my Onkyo Pro PR-SC885 had with XT. Maybe it's just the higher resolution of the filters, but the highs seem crisper, with more detail, and louder than before.
 

Hi Craig,
No, the target curve did not change. My suspicion is that you are hearing the effects of the much higher resolution. 32x is a really big increase.

 

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/795421/official-audyssey-thread-faq-in-post-51779/32940#post_19510787
Originally Posted by unclemat View Post
or it's really the result of XT32 being just better than the regular XT?).


Hard to say for sure, but XT32 does have 32 times higher resolution that XT and so it will definitely find and correct narrower peaks and dips--especially at the low frequency range of the satellites.

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/795421/official-audyssey-thread-faq-in-post-51779/30360#post_19129901

"True. The curve will never be perfectly flat. It will be much flatter with XT32 because of the huge increase in points. To Jeff's point, however: there is a point beyond which peaks and dips get so narrow that they are not audible.

The biggest benefit of XT32 in my view is the correction below 200 Hz or so in the satellite speakers. That's a very important region for small rooms because most of the problems are there. XT32 hits that region with many more points than XT."

 

Wow - what a great post, SoM - good research there. And how differently Chris answered questions in the old days huh?  Far more transparency in his replies as well as in XT32's resulting SQ ;)

 

I think this pretty much nails it. Chris is confirming what many of us have heard and which Igor has measured.

 

As to those members with lesser versions of Audyssey, well, all I can say is upgrade or be happy with what you have. But recognise that what you have is not the best that Audyssey can be. When Chris says the equivalent of "XT32 is much better at [this or that] than XT", that is exactly the same as saying "XT is much worse at [this or that] than XT32".  

 

There is a progression from the 'basic' version of Audyssey to the 'best' version. It would be absurd if that progression did not yield superior results going from one step to the next, to the next and so on.

 

 

MultEQ - 2x and 128x filter resolution. XT32, 512x and 512x.  Most notably the difference in the resolution for the satellites where 512x as opposed to 2x is a factor of 256 times greater!  One would expect a dramatic difference.

post #67448 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

The implied problem with XT (or lower) at the higher frequencies AIUI was that it was too coarse in its ability to correct, due to the lesser filter resolution, and thus it could end up creating one problem while trying to correct another. XT32, with its vastly increased resolution, can be much more precise at attacking a tiny problem without inadvertantly creating a new problem in the process. Sort of like trying to make a precise incision with a scalpel vs. a butter knife. XT32 can be so fine and precise with its corrections that it can more "gently" smooth and shape the high frequency response to meet the target curve without resultant artifacts.
That might be what Chris was implying, but I don't think that is the difference. XT32 is a philisophical departure from other versions of Audyssey. It isn't using a sharper scalpel to correct tiny problems in the higher frequencies; it's not correcting them at all. When you look at the graph of the correction filters that Jerry posted, what activity do you see in the high frequencies?

IF other versions of Audyssey were like XT32 but with less filter resolution or fewer taps, then I would buy the notion that some rooms can get away with the lesser versions of Audyssey. But that's not what's happening. Non-XT32 versions all attempt to correct at frequencies whose wavelengths are less than an inch long (as can be seen by the hair/grass in Jerry's graphs). Your ears are never going to be where those high frequency corrections line up with the problems they're correcting.

 

Yup. +1.  That's the heart of it - and what Jerry and Igor have shown with their measurements: that non-XT32 versions do more harm than good in the upper frequencies.  Removing the harm results in a better sound.

post #67449 of 70896
Disagree. The measurements do NOT conclusively show that XT does "more harm than good". That's a much stronger statement then "not as good as XT32", and I think needs a significant amount more evidence. You are saying explicitly that XT would make it sound WORSE than doing nothing at all. That I cannot agree with.

This is the "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" that I mentioned above. It's fine to say "XT32 is better" (obvious) and try and learn more about the reasons why (not so obvious). But let's not overextend the conclusion prematurely and conflate "XT32 is better" with "anything less than XT32 is actually doing harm".
Edited by batpig - 11/28/13 at 7:11am
post #67450 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Disagree. The measurements do NOT conclusively show that XT does "more harm than good". That's a much stronger statement then "not as good as XT32", and I think needs a significant amount more evidence. You are saying explicitly that XT would make it sound WORSE than doing nothing at all. That I cannot agree with.

This is the "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" that I mentioned above. Let's not conflate "XT32 is better" with "anything less than XT32 is actually doing harm".

+1. And needs further testing with proper material any one can reproduce on their HT system.
post #67451 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Disagree. The measurements do NOT conclusively show that XT does "more harm than good". That's a much stronger statement then "not as good as XT32", and I think needs a significant amount more evidence. You are saying explicitly that XT would make it sound WORSE than doing nothing at all. That I cannot agree with.

This is the "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" that I mentioned above. It's fine to say "XT32 is better" (obvious) and try and learn more about the reasons why (not so obvious). But let's not overextend the conclusion prematurely and conflate "XT32 is better" with "anything less than XT32 is actually doing harm".

 

I thjnk we are in broad agreement wrt to the differences between XT and XT32 (not to mention MultEQ) but are perhaps using different words to convey what we mean.

 

I do think that the results that Jerry and Igor have graphed actually do show more harm than good. EQ above Schroeder is usually problematic AIUI and if it is done badly is worse than no EQ at all. There is no doubt now that Audyssey's EQ above Schroeder is only done well with XT32.   I'd rather use treatments to EQ above Schroeder anyway, but accept that not everyone can.

 

I personally would prefer NO EQ at all for the HF to the mess that I can see in Igor and Jerry's graphs, compared with the graphs of XT32. One camp is saying that XT32 doesn't do very much in the HF range and the other is saying that it does do a fair bit but the resolution from XT32 is so fine that it 'smooths out' the response so much better. (Oh, and of course one school is in denial and saying that the graphs prove nothing, but that POV is irrelevant IMO).  Either way, BOTH camps are saying that XT is pretty poor in the HF compared with XT32.

 

Now as to whether one would be better off with nothing at all than with XT, I agree with you. XT is better than nothing. What it does for the bass, while still a huge way from what XT32 does, is still worthwhile. But what it does to the HF is exactly what I noticed when switching from XT to XT32. 

post #67452 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

That might be what Chris was implying, but I don't think that is the difference. XT32 is a philisophical departure from other versions of Audyssey. It isn't using a sharper scalpel to correct tiny problems in the higher frequencies; it's not correcting them at all. When you look at the graph of the correction filters that Jerry posted, what activity do you see in the high frequencies?

IF other versions of Audyssey were like XT32 but with less filter resolution or fewer taps, then I would buy the notion that some rooms can get away with the lesser versions of Audyssey. But that's not what's happening. Non-XT32 versions all attempt to correct at frequencies whose wavelengths are less than an inch long (as can be seen by the hair/grass in Jerry's graphs). Your ears are never going to be where those high frequency corrections line up with the problems they're correcting.
Sanjay, good to see u here. I am returning back after a few years and I recall your insights into surround sound from the Lexicon Logic 7 days. Curious, are you into Logic 7 anymore or other products from David Griesinger's work? Your thoughts on how DSX compares to Logic 7, though not apples to apples but similar in motive for enhancing surround experience.
post #67453 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Wow - what a great post, SoM - good research there. And how differently Chris answered questions in the old days huh?  Far more transparency in his replies as well as in XT32's resulting SQ wink.gif

I think this pretty much nails it. Chris is confirming what many of us have heard and which Igor has measured.

As to those members with lesser versions of Audyssey, well, all I can say is upgrade or be happy with what you have. But recognise that what you have is not the best that Audyssey can be. When Chris says the equivalent of "XT32 is much better at [this or that] than XT", that is exactly the same as saying "XT is much worse at [this or that] than XT32".  

There is a progression from the 'basic' version of Audyssey to the 'best' version. It would be absurd if that progression did not yield superior results going from one step to the next, to the next and so on.




MultEQ - 2x and 128x filter resolution. XT32, 512x and 512x.  Most notably the difference in the resolution for the satellites where 512x as opposed to 2x is a factor of 256 times greater!  One would expect a dramatic difference.
Good discussion folks. I recently switched from XT to XT32 also and just finished pro-calibrating. It does sound very good. I have not compared the XT to XT32 side-by-side and have not done any critical listening yet. Personally, I went with XT32 because I wanted the latest innovations in room correction and the best product available in this price-range. So I replaced the DHC 80.1 with the Integra DHC 80.3. I also downsized from 9.2 DSX (wide) to good old 5.1 and a massive amplifier (Theta Dreadnaught). Another change was move away from tube and dedicated 2-ch gear to the room corrected sound. In summary, I am very happy with the current setup. Here are my thoughts on Audyssey improvements. While it is great to have finer and finer resolutions, at the end of the day, improvements will eventually diminish. What I would look to see in future revs are improvements in setup. For example, is there more that can be done to address back ground noise? Pro specific, each measurement position takes about 5 minutes for just 5.1 channels (I am using an older Sandybridge laptop) with Pro. Has this duration become longer now? The longer it takes to measure, the higher the probability of ambient noise corrupting the measurements. Improvements in UI, something like what REW provides especially for target curve design.
post #67454 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcomp124 View Post


 Pro specific, each measurement position takes about 5 minutes for just 5.1 channels (I am using an older Sandybridge laptop) with Pro. Has this duration become longer now? The longer it takes to measure, the higher the probability of ambient noise corrupting the measurements. Improvements in UI, something like what REW provides especially for target curve design.

 

Not true.  The increased time for each measurement in Pro is because the measurement collects more data, so the data transfer step takes more time over a slow network/RS232 connection.  Since there is no actual measuring going on during the data transfer, there is no increased risk of background noise affecting the calibration.  Beside, there is no proof that background noise (within reason) adversely affects a calibration.

post #67455 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

The measurements do NOT conclusively show that XT does "more harm than good". That's a much stronger statement then "not as good as XT32", and I think needs a significant amount more evidence. You are saying explicitly that XT would make it sound WORSE than doing nothing at all.
What would you accept as evidence? A published double-blind listening comparison between room correction products where XT scores worse than doing nothing at all?
post #67456 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcomp124 View Post

Sanjay, good to see u here. I am returning back after a few years and I recall your insights into surround sound from the Lexicon Logic 7 days. Curious, are you into Logic 7 anymore or other products from David Griesinger's work? Your thoughts on how DSX compares to Logic 7, though not apples to apples but similar in motive for enhancing surround experience.
Hi Jai, long time. L7 extracts ambience from the soundtrack. DSX generates early reflections that weren't in the soundtrack. L7 adds speakers to the surround field. DSX adds speakers to the front soundstage. You had examples of both approaches (ambience extraction modes and ambience generation modes) in your old Lex, both designed by Dr.G.

Both can be done well, to the extent that listeners enjoy the effect. Personally, I prefer extracting to generating. So if I were to do heights and/or wides, I would use DTS Neo:X processing. IF you do set up heights and wides, then you can switch between Neo and DSX to see whether you prefer extracting or generating.
post #67457 of 70896

To no one in perticular:

As I have posted already, I could hear the slight degradation in HF SQ A/B XT vs no Audyssey.  But I was more than willing to trade that for the powerful LF taming, which certainly took XT out of the "worse than nothing" and "more harm than good " categories for ME.   

 

DSPRC has a terrible rep amongst audiophiles as they are generally quite adept at simply "listening through" the room-induced irregularities in the LF, particularly in their own rooms.  OTOH they tend to critically listen for things that most people are unaware of, like pick or bow on string, room ambiance (echo), soundstage width and precise placement in the soundfield, etc.  They tend to hone in on loss of detail in the high end, which is often what XT inadvertantly produces.  

 

XT 32 is the only iteration of Audyssey I can recommend to audiophiles.

 

OTOH, I just helped my son set up his MultEQ-equipped low-end Denon AVR with a modest Polk speaker 5.0 system in a small fam rm/HT.  Everyone is very pleased with the result.  Audyssey helped us identify that he had wired a surround out of phase and that the speaker wire lug jumpers on his fronts were loose-one speaker's woofers hadn't even been working! :D  So for Joe 6 pack Audyssey MultEQ is fab!

post #67458 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

The measurements do NOT conclusively show that XT does "more harm than good". That's a much stronger statement then "not as good as XT32", and I think needs a significant amount more evidence. You are saying explicitly that XT would make it sound WORSE than doing nothing at all.
What would you accept as evidence? A published double-blind listening comparison between room correction products where XT scores worse than doing nothing at all?

That would certainly be more convincing than a couple of graphs on an Internet forum. Keith is making the common mistake of overextending the conclusion much further than the evidence warrants.

It would also be nice to have thousands of posts from people on Internet forums like this saying, "gee whiz, the high frequencies just sound worse after calibration with my non XT32 receiver!" But we have the exact opposite. Audyssey has been helping typical listening rooms sound a lot better for a long ass time, and it wasn't just "the bass is better which makes up for the negative effects in the highs".

Shoot, I'd be happy to see Keith find a single post of his own from the days before he upgrading to XT32 where he observed this now conclusively proven phenomenon.

Remember what Igor pointed out was something that he referred to as subtle and difficult to hear without a trained ear and/or a direct comparison to the better alternative. "Not as good as the best" is quite different than "worse than doing nothing".
post #67459 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

XT 32 is the only iteration of Audyssey I can recommend to audiophiles.

OTOH, I just helped my son set up his MultEQ-equipped low-end Denon AVR with a modest Polk speaker 5.0 system in a small fam rm/HT.  Everyone is very pleased with the result.  Audyssey helped us identify that he had wired a surround out of phase and that the speaker wire lug jumpers on his fronts were loose-one speaker's woofers hadn't even been working! biggrin.gif   So for Joe 6 pack Audyssey MultEQ is fab!

Well said. As usual SoM you are able to express things in a balanced manner without overextending the conclusion wink.gif

I'm fine with saying "XT 32 is the only iteration of Audyssey I can recommend to audiophiles." Perhaps if Keith had added "for a critical audiophile" as a caveat I wouldn't be so annoyed. But that's quite different than "more harm than good", implying a net negative by definition. I certainly never once felt line my system sounded worse with many years of non XT32 calibrations.
Edited by batpig - 11/28/13 at 10:00am
post #67460 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

The measurements do NOT conclusively show that XT does "more harm than good". That's a much stronger statement then "not as good as XT32", and I think needs a significant amount more evidence. You are saying explicitly that XT would make it sound WORSE than doing nothing at all.
What would you accept as evidence? A published double-blind listening comparison between room correction products where XT scores worse than doing nothing at all?

 

LOL.... I wonder if there is such a thing available on the world wide web, Sanjay?  ;)

post #67461 of 70896
If you're tacitly referring to the Harman study on perceptually flat vs measured flat, let's remember that XT32 has the same target curve as XT. So that doesn't really seem relevant here.
post #67462 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcomp124 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Wow - what a great post, SoM - good research there. And how differently Chris answered questions in the old days huh?  Far more transparency in his replies as well as in XT32's resulting SQ wink.gif

I think this pretty much nails it. Chris is confirming what many of us have heard and which Igor has measured.

As to those members with lesser versions of Audyssey, well, all I can say is upgrade or be happy with what you have. But recognise that what you have is not the best that Audyssey can be. When Chris says the equivalent of "XT32 is much better at [this or that] than XT", that is exactly the same as saying "XT is much worse at [this or that] than XT32".  

There is a progression from the 'basic' version of Audyssey to the 'best' version. It would be absurd if that progression did not yield superior results going from one step to the next, to the next and so on.




MultEQ - 2x and 128x filter resolution. XT32, 512x and 512x.  Most notably the difference in the resolution for the satellites where 512x as opposed to 2x is a factor of 256 times greater!  One would expect a dramatic difference.
Good discussion folks. I recently switched from XT to XT32 also and just finished pro-calibrating. It does sound very good. I have not compared the XT to XT32 side-by-side and have not done any critical listening yet. Personally, I went with XT32 because I wanted the latest innovations in room correction and the best product available in this price-range. So I replaced the DHC 80.1 with the Integra DHC 80.3. I also downsized from 9.2 DSX (wide) to good old 5.1 and a massive amplifier (Theta Dreadnaught). Another change was move away from tube and dedicated 2-ch gear to the room corrected sound. In summary, I am very happy with the current setup. Here are my thoughts on Audyssey improvements. While it is great to have finer and finer resolutions, at the end of the day, improvements will eventually diminish. What I would look to see in future revs are improvements in setup. For example, is there more that can be done to address back ground noise? Pro specific, each measurement position takes about 5 minutes for just 5.1 channels (I am using an older Sandybridge laptop) with Pro. Has this duration become longer now? The longer it takes to measure, the higher the probability of ambient noise corrupting the measurements. Improvements in UI, something like what REW provides especially for target curve design.

 

Nice to see you here. Welcome to the Audyssey thread!  Good call IMO to upgrade to XT32.  Many of us made this same step and we almost all reported the same sort of things - much better bass and significantly better HF - a feeling of greater transparency or 'refinement'. Since those days, some of the more ambitious members here have made measurements comparing what XT does vs what XT32 does and the measurements bear out what we heard when listening. Also you will see a common theme throughout the thread where people with XT report they love what it does to the bass but they are not so sure about what it does to the HF. The current discussion is picking up on this thanks to recent measurements posted by Igor and Jerry.

 

There is also a good Pro Kit thread here too where the ins and outs of Pro are discussed and examined.  The biggest item on the wishlist, I think, is for more user control over the Audyssey curve - that is what most people who express a preference seem to want. Sadly, some of us (well me mostly LOL) are of the view that Audyssey's focus has moved away from room correction and more to 'products' these days, so whether we will ever see XT32 developed is a moot point. Time will tell I guess.

post #67463 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

The measurements do NOT conclusively show that XT does "more harm than good". That's a much stronger statement then "not as good as XT32", and I think needs a significant amount more evidence. You are saying explicitly that XT would make it sound WORSE than doing nothing at all.
What would you accept as evidence? A published double-blind listening comparison between room correction products where XT scores worse than doing nothing at all?

That would certainly be more convincing than a couple of graphs on an Internet forum. Keith is making the common mistake of overextending the conclusion much further than the evidence warrants.
 

 

Ooops... I think you just fell into a carefully baited trap LOL. I will let Sanjay have the pleasure as he made the point so beautifully...  my "common mistake" seems to have been shared by one of the most influential outfits in the business... so over to you, Sanjay..

 

Quote:

 

Shoot, I'd be happy to see Keith find a single post of his own from the days before he upgrading to XT32 where he observed this now conclusively proven phenomenon.
 
 

 

Yes - the point is that you have to hear XT32 to know what was 'wrong' with XT.  But if you go back to my posts from the time I upgraded, I am sure you will find that one of the benefits I mentioned was an improvement in the HF - more transparent was how I think I phrased it.

post #67464 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

XT 32 is the only iteration of Audyssey I can recommend to audiophiles.

OTOH, I just helped my son set up his MultEQ-equipped low-end Denon AVR with a modest Polk speaker 5.0 system in a small fam rm/HT.  Everyone is very pleased with the result.  Audyssey helped us identify that he had wired a surround out of phase and that the speaker wire lug jumpers on his fronts were loose-one speaker's woofers hadn't even been working! biggrin.gif   So for Joe 6 pack Audyssey MultEQ is fab!

Well said. As usual SoM you are able to express things in a balanced manner without overextending the conclusion wink.gif

I'm fine with saying "XT 32 is the only iteration of Audyssey I can recommend to audiophiles." Perhaps if Keith had added "for a critical audiophile" as a caveat I wouldn't be so annoyed. But that's quite different than "more harm than good", implying a net negative by definition. I certainly never once felt line my system sounded worse with many years of non XT32 calibrations.

 

It's my opinion that XT does more harm than good in the HF region. I stand by that and on the basis of the evidence presented, it seems to me incontrovertible. What would you call all that hair on the graphs? I’d posit that it was noticeable as a form of distortion. The deliberate introduction of a form of distortion surely is doing more harm than good.

 

I'm not going to defend what I said to the death though - there's no point. The important thing, and the one we all agree on, is that XT32 yields a significantly superior result to the other flavours of Audyssey and, IMO, is the only flavour worth having. It's just my opinion.

post #67465 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

If you're tacitly referring to the Harman study on perceptually flat vs measured flat, let's remember that XT32 has the same target curve as XT. So that doesn't really seem relevant here.

 

Oh no - it's much more relevant than that.... ;)

post #67466 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


The current discussion is picking up on this thanks to recent measurements posted by Igor and Jerry.

I would like to remind participants in this discussion that my measurements simply point out that XT and XT32 treat the higher frequencies differently. The graphs present data, they do not draw conclusions. I see nothing in the data that suggests one is better or worse than the other.
post #67467 of 70896
EXACTLY my point Jerry. The evidence does not support the conclusions being drawn. If a few graphs with some squiggly lines are what counts as "incontrovertible evidence" of more harm than good, then I'm reminded of the Princess Bride line, "I do not think that word means what you think it means".
post #67468 of 70896
Quote:
Ooops... I think you just fell into a carefully baited trap LOL.

I'm not an idiot, it was fairly obvious that Sanjay had a specific reference in mind. He's too smart to say something that leading without a link ready to pop wink.gif
post #67469 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post
 
Quote:
Ooops... I think you just fell into a carefully baited trap LOL.

I'm not an idiot, it was fairly obvious that Sanjay had a specific reference in mind. He's too smart to say something that leading without a link ready to pop wink.gif

 

Indeed. ;)

post #67470 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

To no one in perticular:
As I have posted already, I could hear the slight degradation in HF SQ A/B XT vs no Audyssey.  But I was more than willing to trade that for the powerful LF taming, which certainly took XT out of the "worse than nothing" and "more harm than good " categories for ME.

I have an SVS AS-EQ1, which does for subwoofers exactly what XT32 does--and I hear improvement in the HF when MultiEQ XT is switched on in my receiver over what I get with the SVS unit alone. So as they say YMMV and I haven't hear XT32 in my listening room, but I do get a clearer midrange and better imaging with XT on compared to when it's off.
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)