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 2261

post #67801 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuzed2 View Post

Keith,

Thanks for the heads-up on the following!

"BTW, talking of Mark, he is the guest on the next Home Theatre Geeks podcast/Youtube video - a full hour of Mark answering questions on subs and bass - worth downloading IMO"

Also being in the Chicago area ; I have run into Mark several times - this should be a good one!

Cuzed, where are you in Chicago? I live near Navy Pier.
post #67802 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by darthray View Post

 
Quote:
My advice would be to wait until the Bank of Dad account has recovered and buy an XT32 unit. XT32 is so far ahead of XT that I can't, personally, honestly recommend anything else these days.  There is unlikely to be anything in the AV7701 that is sonically significantly better than the 886. I doubt you’d notice any differences if you blind tested them, but I’d eat my hat without ketchup and a beer if you failed to notice the difference between XT and XT32.


Thank you for bringing me back on the path to reson.

You are right, I better off to wait a little and don't hear in my head "what if".


Ray

smile.gif  I am close to 100% sure as I can be that the two XT units would be so similar as to be a waste of money for you. I am 100% sure that XT32 is substantially superior to XT though.  Just tell the kids that the Bank of Dad is temporarily closed and go for an XT32 unit when finances permit... you will not regret that move. smile.gif

Thanks again

It is better to wait and be happy than the alternative of thinking what if!

What follow is a rant

For me it is only a matter of time since I only have $2100 left to pay on the new windows aroud the house + the morgage, other than that I am debt free.
My kids think it's only so much a month and do not look at the total paid with interest. Me I like to pay cash when possible and toys should be pay cash.

The bank of daddy will be close since to make a long story short, I have paid around $12,000 so far for what it was suppose to be my wife co-signing and when the loan did not go through because of my daughther, the Dodge dealership re-input it as my wife loan and it went through (we only fund out 2 years later with the wrong driver licence # and salery).
Now she keep missing payment and my wife credit history is getting bad because the bank never tell us on time (2 to 4 weeks too late) and I was only making the payment to save her good name.
Since it is not happening, might as well inform the bank to repo the Dodge Grand Caravan and lick our wounds.
Never trust family again.
Sorry, End of rant, I just not understand this new generation.

To finish on an happy note, I will eventualy get the AV8801, lots of member said it was worth the difference of money but needed the extra push to convince my self.

Again, a Big Thank you

Ray
Edited by darthray - 12/10/13 at 6:44pm
post #67803 of 70896
For those using DEQ for cable (HDTV) are you using 10 dB for the reference offset? I see this is what Chris Kyriakakis recommends on the official site. I had it at 0 before, but I switched it tonight and it really seems to make the dialogue even clearer and I like the balance of sound better. The TV show I was watching tonight sounded really good smile.gif
post #67804 of 70896
Hi guys...

This is a dumb question but Im new to audyssey

I recently purchased a Denon 1913 and as of right now Im just using a 3.1 setup

I tried to run this audyssey program and there wasnt really a option to pick that looked like
a 3.1 setup. Something called zone2 and such so I choose that one and continued.

The problem Im havingi is setup will test my RIght ....Left and Center speakers but then goes and
tries to run side speakers which I dont have. You hear a faint sound audyssey tries to produce but then
I get the error that there is too much noise or I have speakers to low....

Is there anyway I can run audyssey with a 3-1 setup?

Thanks for your replies...
post #67805 of 70896
I think most people find 10db offset is just right for broadcast tv. It can vary a bit by program though.
post #67806 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

Cuzed, where are you in Chicago? I live near Navy Pier.

I'm in NW burbs - no man's land; between Palatine, Hoffman Estates , and Barrington.
post #67807 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_mash View Post

Hi guys...

This is a dumb question but Im new to audyssey

I recently purchased a Denon 1913 and as of right now Im just using a 3.1 setup

I tried to run this audyssey program and there wasnt really a option to pick that looked like
a 3.1 setup. Something called zone2 and such so I choose that one and continued.

The problem Im havingi is setup will test my RIght ....Left and Center speakers but then goes and
tries to run side speakers which I dont have. You hear a faint sound audyssey tries to produce but then
I get the error that there is too much noise or I have speakers to low....

Is there anyway I can run audyssey with a 3-1 setup?

Thanks for your replies...

I'm running 3.1, too. I don't have a Denon, but when Audyssey runs in my receiver, it tries to detect surround speakers for the first measurement. It doesn't play any sound, and it seems to figure out that I don't have surround speakers. Maybe try a different option besides "zone 2?"
post #67808 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthray View Post
 
 
To finish on an happy note, I will eventualy get the AV8801, lots of member said it was worth the difference of money but needed the extra push to convince my self.

Again, a Big Thank you

Ray

 

You're welcome, Ray.  The AV8801 is a fine unit but it is pretty costly. I’d also take a look at any Denon that has XT32.

post #67809 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_mash View Post

Hi guys...

This is a dumb question but Im new to audyssey

I recently purchased a Denon 1913 and as of right now Im just using a 3.1 setup

I tried to run this audyssey program and there wasnt really a option to pick that looked like
a 3.1 setup. Something called zone2 and such so I choose that one and continued.

The problem Im havingi is setup will test my RIght ....Left and Center speakers but then goes and
tries to run side speakers which I dont have. You hear a faint sound audyssey tries to produce but then
I get the error that there is too much noise or I have speakers to low....

Is there anyway I can run audyssey with a 3-1 setup?

Thanks for your replies...

 

Forget Zone 2 - that is a red herring. Just run Audyssey and it will detect what speakers you have on the first pass. It will try to ping each speaker, even the surrounds which don't exist - it will do this for the first mic position only. After it has figured out that you don't have surround channels, it will ping just the channels you do have on the subsequent mic positions.

 

I am not a Denon guy myself so IDK if you need to tell the AVR that you do not have surround speakers - one of the Denon guys will chime in I am sure.

post #67810 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_mash View Post

Hi guys...

This is a dumb question but Im new to audyssey

I recently purchased a Denon 1913 and as of right now Im just using a 3.1 setup

I tried to run this audyssey program and there wasnt really a option to pick that looked like
a 3.1 setup. Something called zone2 and such so I choose that one and continued.

The problem Im havingi is setup will test my RIght ....Left and Center speakers but then goes and
tries to run side speakers which I dont have. You hear a faint sound audyssey tries to produce but then
I get the error that there is too much noise or I have speakers to low....

Is there anyway I can run audyssey with a 3-1 setup?

Thanks for your replies...

Denon and Marantz AVRs have two options ... you can either let Audyssey determine what speakers you have in your setup (takes a minute or two longer) or you can tell it in advance what speakers you "don't" have which will speed up the mic #1 processing. As noted on p. 24 in your Denon 1913 Owner's manual .....

post #67811 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Guys, are we in the Official Audyssey thread we we try to help others get the most out of their system and sometimes try 8really hard) to discuss "how Audyssey works?"..or...???

The FAQ is so good that everyone find their answers there wink.gif Everything is known about Audyssey, and even something Audyssey itself doesn't want us to know rolleyes.gif So, let people talk about something interesting. It is always good to look around. Knowing something from the competition could let us understand what we have better, look at it from new angle, let to find a way how to better use it.

A new interesting topic for discussion from me (and probably worth even adding to the FAQ), I don't think I've seen something like that in this thread yet.

We have 8 measurement points. Why - because it is better than just one. The more we know about the room the better and it is not possible to know everything just from one measurement point. So, we measure the MLP and some area around it. BUT... Usually it is all at ear height. We measure around it in just two dimensions, so - we get more information about horizontal modes of the room. But what about vertical modes? What if at ear height we are in a vertical node, so the calibration engine doesn't get any clue what is happening in vertical direction for some frequencies! I am personally found that choosing measurement points with slightly different height allows me get better calibration. And... when looking around I have found that Dirac in their product also recommends to measure at different heights when calibrating.

Also, I think many here remember that there are reports from time to time about measuring slightly above ear height improves calibration for some users. I think this is related.
post #67812 of 70896

^Interestingly, the Audyssey Pro instructions specifically encourage taking a few measurements above and below ear height, but you have the option of many more sampling positions as well.  I'm optimizing for MLP so I do MLP  at ear height then add 6-7 more positions at ear height spaced evenly throughout a 2'X3' ellipse around MLP.  Then I do one 2-3" below and one 2"-3" above ear height very close to MLP.  If I'm up for it, I may even add a couple more above and below ear height further out in the ellipse. 

 

When I had only 8 position options (non-Pro) I still reserved one for above and one for below, close to MLP.

post #67813 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

The FAQ is so good that everyone find their answers there wink.gif Everything is known about Audyssey, and even something Audyssey itself doesn't want us to know rolleyes.gif So, let people talk about something interesting. It is always good to look around. Knowing something from the competition could let us understand what we have better, look at it from new angle, let to find a way how to better use it.

A new interesting topic for discussion from me (and probably worth even adding to the FAQ), I don't think I've seen something like that in this thread yet.

We have 8 measurement points. Why - because it is better than just one. The more we know about the room the better and it is not possible to know everything just from one measurement point. So, we measure the MLP and some area around it. BUT... Usually it is all at ear height. We measure around it in just two dimensions, so - we get more information about horizontal modes of the room. But what about vertical modes? What if at ear height we are in a vertical node, so the calibration engine doesn't get any clue what is happening in vertical direction for some frequencies! I am personally found that choosing measurement points with slightly different height allows me get better calibration. And... when looking around I have found that Dirac in their product also recommends to measure at different heights when calibrating.

Also, I think many here remember that there are reports from time to time about measuring slightly above ear height improves calibration for some users. I think this is related.

For quite some time, I have been measuring the first six points with the mic at ear-height, and then I repeat positions 1 and 2 with the mic 3" higher. I started doing this after reading an Audyssey calibration thread on HTS. While it is difficult to attribute any improvement to this revised technique, I have been extremely pleased with my calibration results. Once I am happy, I tend to stay with a procedure that works.
post #67814 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post


For quite some time, I have been measuring the first six points with the mic at ear-height, and then I repeat positions 1 and 2 with the mic 3" higher. I started doing this after reading an Audyssey calibration thread on HTS. While it is difficult to attribute any improvement to this revised technique, I have been extremely pleased with my calibration results. Once I am happy, I tend to stay with a procedure that works.

I have done the same based on HTS.

post #67815 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

A new interesting topic for discussion from me (and probably worth even adding to the FAQ), I don't think I've seen something like that in this thread yet.

We have 8 measurement points. Why - because it is better than just one. The more we know about the room the better and it is not possible to know everything just from one measurement point. So, we measure the MLP and some area around it. BUT... Usually it is all at ear height. We measure around it in just two dimensions, so - we get more information about horizontal modes of the room. But what about vertical modes? What if at ear height we are in a vertical node, so the calibration engine doesn't get any clue what is happening in vertical direction for some frequencies! I am personally found that choosing measurement points with slightly different height allows me get better calibration. And... when looking around I have found that Dirac in their product also recommends to measure at different heights when calibrating.

Also, I think many here remember that there are reports from time to time about measuring slightly above ear height improves calibration for some users. I think this is related.

Good point.  However, if all the listening positions are at the same ear-height and all the measurements are at the same ear-height, then a mode at that height will be common to all the measurements and, fuzzy-logic or not, will be regarded as an important parameter by Audyssey.  I think that, with the limited number of measurements of the early Audyssey implementations, this was a way of ensuring that such a mode would be corrected (or, at least, attempted) by assuming most listeners' ear-heights would be in a similar vertical position although, of necessity, at different horizontal positions.

 

With reference to your comment about Dirac, I was advised by McIntosh, when I was using RoomPerfect in their MX-150, to take at least one measurement close to the ceiling (a pressure zone for the vertical dimension).  This bumped up the "room knowledge" meter and, also, greatly improved the subjective quality of the overall correction.  Might be interesting to experiment with this using AudysseyPro.

post #67816 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Guys, are we in the Official Audyssey thread we we try to help others get the most out of their system and sometimes try 8really hard) to discuss "how Audyssey works?"..or...???

The FAQ is so good that everyone find their answers there wink.gif Everything is known about Audyssey, and even something Audyssey itself doesn't want us to know rolleyes.gif So, let people talk about something interesting. It is always good to look around. Knowing something from the competition could let us understand what we have better, look at it from new angle, let to find a way how to better use it.

A new interesting topic for discussion from me (and probably worth even adding to the FAQ), I don't think I've seen something like that in this thread yet.

We have 8 measurement points. Why - because it is better than just one. The more we know about the room the better and it is not possible to know everything just from one measurement point. So, we measure the MLP and some area around it. BUT... Usually it is all at ear height. We measure around it in just two dimensions, so - we get more information about horizontal modes of the room. But what about vertical modes? What if at ear height we are in a vertical node, so the calibration engine doesn't get any clue what is happening in vertical direction for some frequencies! I am personally found that choosing measurement points with slightly different height allows me get better calibration. And... when looking around I have found that Dirac in their product also recommends to measure at different heights when calibrating.

Also, I think many here remember that there are reports from time to time about measuring slightly above ear height improves calibration for some users. I think this is related.

 

Interesting point, Igor.  I have Audyssey Pro so have many more measurement points available to me. Given your points above, and Kals' response wrt to Roomperfect and the 'near ceiling' measurement, I will try this next time I measure, which will be soon as I am making some small changes to the room.

post #67817 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

However, if all the listening positions are at the same ear-height and all the measurements are at the same ear-height, then a mode at that height will be common to all the measurements and, fuzzy-logic or not, will be regarded as an important parameter by Audyssey.  I think that, with the limited number of measurements of the early Audyssey implementations, this was a way of ensuring that such a mode would be corrected (or, at least, attempted) by assuming most listeners' ear-heights would be in a similar vertical position although, of necessity, at different horizontal positions.

It is wrong to think that if all listeners are at the same ear height it is enough to correct for this height. If you are in a node (a null) then all the listeners will also be in that node. And if you in a node then at the corresponding frequency there is no pressure. So - there is no information about the room for the calibration system at that frequency. You can boost at that frequency based on that lacking/improper info you collected, but it will only make the room mode exercised even more, so you will not hear much more sound (the notes), but will hear hum and how things in the room start shaking. Remember that Audyssey claims time-domain correction. It is about improving transients. If you correct the mode correctly then it will improve transients, and improving transients will let perceive sound better at that frequency even when you are in a null. But to correct it properly the correction algorithm should know there is a mode, but it doesn't as all points are on the same height and info is simply missing in all the points so it doesn't know about it at all, or know less that necessary to correct it properly. Good precise algorithm need a lot of data to work correctly (and Audyssey is a very precise thing, it can correct very aggressively if it thinks there is a need). And it is our responsibility to provide it as much data as we can so it will do as much as possible without going to the wrong decisions because some data is incomplete.

Measuring close to ceiling could be good when calibrating subwoofer exclusively, but might not be the best idea for full-range measurements due to directionality of tweeters and interference patterns between tweeter and midwoofer at crossover frequnecy. Although just one such measurement probably will not hurt.
post #67818 of 70896

If it makes sense to measure a little above ear height  then it makes even more sense to me to measure a little below-after all, we tend to relax and slouch so are thus actually measuring where we are sometimes listening.

 

I don't get the value of measuring near the ceiling (?!) but I'll await the data and impressions from the adventurous with lots of time on their hands.;)

post #67819 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

I am personally found that choosing measurement points with slightly different height allows me get better calibration.

Don't spare us please, but give more explanation on what you mean by "better calibration". Are these measured results or ear test results, or both? And how much better are they? smile.gif

Igor?
post #67820 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post
 

 

I don't get the value of measuring near the ceiling (?!) but I'll await the data and impressions from the adventurous with lots of time on their hands.;)

 

For once, that doesn't mean me.   ;)

post #67821 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Don't spare us please, but give more explanation on what you mean by "better calibration". Are these measured results or ear test results, or both? And how much better are they? smile.gif

By better I mean the sound is better to my ears, especially in the bass range. I haven't tried to compare measurements.
post #67822 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

By better I mean the sound is better to my ears, especially in the bass range. I haven't tried to compare measurements.

Enjoy your system! smile.gif
post #67823 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

If you are in a node (a null) then all the listeners will also be in that node. And if you in a node then at the corresponding frequency there is no pressure. So - there is no information about the room for the calibration system at that frequency. You can boost at that frequency based on that lacking/improper info you collected, but it will only make the room mode exercised even more, so you will not hear much more sound (the notes), but will hear hum and how things in the room start shaking.
Wouldn't a better solution be to design a room correction algorithm that doesn't attempt to boost nulls rather than tricking the room correction by using measurement locations where no one's ears will be?
post #67824 of 70896
Delete
Edited by comfynumb - 12/10/13 at 10:04am
post #67825 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post


For quite some time, I have been measuring the first six points with the mic at ear-height, and then I repeat positions 1 and 2 with the mic 3" higher. I started doing this after reading an Audyssey calibration thread on HTS. While it is difficult to attribute any improvement to this revised technique, I have been extremely pleased with my calibration results. Once I am happy, I tend to stay with a procedure that works.

 

After reading Kal Rubinson's review of the Sherwood R-972 with the Trinnov Optimizer, the following statement caught my attention:  "...my experience with other EQ systems suggests that positioning the mic above the tweeter axis can give unpredictable results, depending on the tweeter's radiation pattern."  This comment was based on a question as to how to position the mic when the tweeter and ear height are different.  Of course, for anyone who has bookshelf-type speakers, the answer is to aim the speaker at the MLP.  But what about those of us with floor-standing towers--while not impossible, it is more difficult to angle the speakers in the vertical plane.

 

I just measured the tweeter height of my PSB towers, and they are 30" above the floor, and my ears are 35" above the floor.  This leads me to want to experiment with an Audyssey calibration with the mic lowered to 30", just to see if there is a noticeable (and perhaps measurable) difference.  Stay tuned for the results...

post #67826 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

After reading Kal Rubinson's review of the Sherwood R-972 with the Trinnov Optimizer, the following statement caught my attention:  "...my experience with other EQ systems suggests that positioning the mic above the tweeter axis can give unpredictable results, depending on the tweeter's radiation pattern."  This comment was based on a question as to how to position the mic when the tweeter and ear height are different.  Of course, for anyone who has bookshelf-type speakers, the answer is to aim the speaker at the MLP.  But what about those of us with floor-standing towers--while not impossible, it is more difficult to angle the speakers in the vertical plane.

I just measured the tweeter height of my PSB towers, and they are 30" above the floor, and my ears are 35" above the floor.  This leads me to want to experiment with an Audyssey calibration with the mic lowered to 30", just to see if there is a noticeable (and perhaps measurable) difference.  Stay tuned for the results...

Jerry, why don't you just slouch (like SoM does) 5" down and you can save yourself an Audyssey calibration!! tongue.gifsmile.gif
post #67827 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

If you are in a node (a null) then all the listeners will also be in that node. And if you in a node then at the corresponding frequency there is no pressure. So - there is no information about the room for the calibration system at that frequency. You can boost at that frequency based on that lacking/improper info you collected, but it will only make the room mode exercised even more, so you will not hear much more sound (the notes), but will hear hum and how things in the room start shaking.
Wouldn't a better solution be to design a room correction algorithm that doesn't attempt to boost nulls rather than tricking the room correction by using measurement locations where no one's ears will be?

Most of the measurements in an audyssey run are where no ones ears will be. That seems like a red herring argument. You are sampling the space. And people's ear heights will not be constant.

Audyssey also has greater correction leeway for cutting than boosting (I believe -15db vs +9db IIRC). Although I agree with your broader point in principle.
post #67828 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Jerry, why don't you just slouch (like SoM does) 5" down and you can save yourself an Audyssey calibration!! tongue.gifsmile.gif


LOL I'm no slouch ;)and don't recommend it.  http://soundocity.com has nice but pricey  tower tilting solutions.

post #67829 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post


It is wrong to think that if all listeners are at the same ear height it is enough to correct for this height. If you are in a node (a null) then all the listeners will also be in that node. And if you in a node then at the corresponding frequency there is no pressure. So - there is no information about the room for the calibration system at that frequency. .........................................................

Measuring close to ceiling could be good when calibrating subwoofer exclusively, but might not be the best idea for full-range measurements due to directionality of tweeters and interference patterns between tweeter and midwoofer at crossover frequnecy. Although just one such measurement probably will not hurt.

No pressure over a particular narrow range is characteristic of a null but that does not mean that Audyssey has no information about it.  Audyssey collects data across the audible spectrum and the lack of input at the null would be in contrast to frequencies above and below.  Audyssey would deal with it as a null or as an error or as constituting the beginning of the bass rolloff of the speaker or speakers.  This may be one reason why some people report surprisingly high recommended bass management frequencies.  OTOH, I am not suggesting that it is a good approach, just a simple one that I think Audyssey adopted early on.  If so, I doubt there is a serious or consistent problem with it or Audyssey would recommended it.

 

Yes, a single measurement was what was suggested by McIntosh and that was in the context of about 10 other, more reasonable ones.

post #67830 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Forget Zone 2 - that is a red herring. Just run Audyssey and it will detect what speakers you have on the first pass. It will try to ping each speaker, even the surrounds which don't exist - it will do this for the first mic position only. After it has figured out that you don't have surround channels, it will ping just the channels you do have on the subsequent mic positions.

I am not a Denon guy myself so IDK if you need to tell the AVR that you do not have surround speakers - one of the Denon guys will chime in I am sure.

I will go back tonight to check....but if I remember correctly....I have to choose some sort of setup when going thru this setup. Am I missing a step? Or is there something I need to adjust before running this setup?

Thanks again for your reply....really appreciate it.
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)