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 2297

post #68881 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post

I hate to lose the full benefit of the Bozaks by pegging my crossover too high. I am going to keep researching and soliciting advice, and after I run Audyssey on the new receiver tomorrow, I'm going to listen to the various combinations of crossovers and see what I can hear. But frankly, I'm pretty confused at this point. I guess that must be part of the fun in being an audiophile? rolleyes.gif

Back when I bought my first Bozaks, they and Klipsch were head-to-head competitors and so were the audio stores here that carried them. I spent many hours auditioning Bozak and Klipsch speakers, going back and forth between the separate audio stores that specialized in one or the other (never both).

Many, many people are concerned about losing the full benefit of their high quality, expensive main or surround speakers by setting the sub too high. I think people should try both, and decide by careful auditioning. The result may be different with music v.s. movies. Some pre/pros or AVRs will allow you to use the preferred method with each. Here is the trade off, as I understand it: 1) By crossing over at 80 Hz, you allow Audyssey to use very high resolution correction for all frequencies below 80. By crossing over at 60 (or 40) the frequencies between 60 (or 40) and 80 will receive less precise correction. OR 2) by crossing over at 60 (or 40) you can use your Bozak woofers that you like from there on up. The Bozak woofers are PDG, and have a great rep. Most subs are less precise at those frequencies (IMO), but your subs may be an exception, as some are. Below about 40, almost any good sub will be flatter, and you need the lower frequencies for movies. Whether you set your crossover for 40, 60 or 80, be sure your Low Pass Filter for Low Frequency Effects is set at 120 Hz. It will play movie special effects, but not affect your music from CDs, etc. (If I understand correctly).

Berkeley Custom Electronics had the Concert Grands and the Klipschorns at the same time. It was a "hole in the wall" run by a real original, Joe Minor. Years ago, John Curl, the great designer of Parasound electronics worked there. So did Don Helmholtz, later picked as "The best tech in the Bay Area" by the Bay Guardian. It was a great place to sit and listen for hours, pick brains, and BS about audio.
Edited by garygarrison - 1/13/14 at 9:47pm
post #68882 of 70896
I scrolled past my own post too several times eek.gif so please forgive the large font that will most likely catch some eye this time. So let me try this "Sorry if this was discussed before. Is it true that there is a shortage of the Pro Kit if someone wants to buy one now and is it true that the product (kit) is going to be discontinued?" biggrin.gif
post #68883 of 70896
I saw your post, and I believe I also saw that at least one person posted an answer. First of all, there is a dedicated Pro thread, so this question is more suited to that forum. Second, I have heard nothing about either a shortage of kits, or that Pro is scheduled to be discontinued.

Edit: I went back and checked, and Sdrucker responded to your post almost immediately. confused.gif
post #68884 of 70896
Hey guys, I just watched this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l1IkpzeuQI

It really, really surprised me by what I heard.
I was wondering what you guys thought about it if you had seen it? This guy seems quite credible. I'm not sure if this is even the place to ask, but I thought most Audyssey experts would be here, and I'm trying to learn!
smile.gif
post #68885 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Player3 View Post

Hey guys, I just watched this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l1IkpzeuQI

It really, really surprised me by what I heard.
I was wondering what you guys thought about it if you had seen it? This guy seems quite credible. I'm not sure if this is even the place to ask, but I thought most Audyssey experts would be here, and I'm trying to learn!
smile.gif



It's not even 5:30 here and I'm not up to watching an hour long video. What are your concerns?



Edit;
I watched enough of this to learn that Mr Hale is not a fan of room correction, he basically feels it changes the speakers on axis response too much. I will watch this whole video later on, so I can't comment too much, but I will say that room correction is not for everyone. I've achieved good sound for a long time without Audyssey, but since I've been using this room correction not only do I feel my sound is much better, it's made me more "in tune" with my setup and room. Imo knowing both the strengths and weaknesses of both were key to achieving what I feel is some pretty good sound. Like I said I'll watch the whole vid later on.
Edited by comfynumb - 1/14/14 at 3:06am
post #68886 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

It's not even 5:30 here and I'm not up to watching an hour long video. What are your concerns?



Edit;
I watched enough of this to learn that Mr Hale is not a fan of room correction, he basically feels it changes the speakers on axis response too much. I will watch this whole video later on, so I can't comment too much, but I will say that room correction is not for everyone. I've achieved good sound for a long time without Audyssey, but since I've been using this room correction not only do I feel my sound is much better, it's made me more "in tune" with my setup and room. Imo knowing both the strengths and weaknesses of both were key to achieving what I feel is some pretty good sound. Like I said I'll watch the whole vid later on.

Good point.

Mr. Hale is correct with his point of trying to fix the off-axis frequency response to the detriment of the on-axis response. This is not just an issue for Audyssey but for all full frequency response correction equalisation. The microphone/software, which has no a priori knowledge of the loudspeaker, is attempting to correct the stuff that should be left alone. Dr. Toole identified this issue (the final point below) in one of his essays years ago (1998/99), Science in the Service of Art:
Quote:
The short answer is “equalize”. At this point, some people’s hackles are rising, I am sure. Equalization
has acquired a bad reputation over the years. To some proponents, it is a “cure all”; set up a microphone, follow
the dancing lights of a “real-time analyzer”, reach for the trusty multifilter equalizer and create a pretty curve.
Such an exercise is almost certainly doomed to disappoint. Steady-state room curves are “dumb” measurements,
in that the microphone simply adds up all of the incoming sounds, from whatever direction, after whatever time.

One-third octave analysis, which is typical of these devices, is a crude measurement. Two ears and a brain are
much more sensitive and analytical, directionally, temporally and spectrally.
To be successful, equalization should address the problems it has the potential to remedy. There are some
things equalization can and cannot do:

1. It cannot make a poor speaker sound good. With laboratory measurements to work from it might make a
good speaker sound better. However, there is nothing that an average consumer can measure in a listening
room that would reveal problems in a speaker that can be repaired by equalization. If the speaker has been
competently designed, it should probably be left alone at frequencies above about 300 to 500 Hz, whatever
the room-curves look like.

2. At frequencies below about 300 to 500 Hz, the system performance is dictated by the shape and size of the
room, and the position of the speaker and listener within it. Three factors are interactively operational here:

- solid-angle gains (the proximity of the speaker and listener to adjacent room boundaries: walls and floor.)
Addressing this requires a broadband “tone-control” kind of equalization.

- room resonances, which can cause strong peaks and dips, some with quite high “Q”. Before these can be
addressed, the resonances must be identified within a complicated confusion of peaks and dips caused by
acoustical interference. It is always unwise to try to fill dips – acoustical cancellations can be
“bottomless pits”. Prominent peaks can be individually addressed with parametric filters set to the
appropriate center frequency, Q, and gain/loss. Identifying those parameters accurately requires high resolution
measurements; much more detail than is revealed by the traditional 1/3-octave “real-time
analyzers”.

- Acoustical interference caused by the interaction of many reflected sounds within the room. These are
non-minimum-phase phenomena, and they cannot be addressed with equalization. Fortunately, our ears
are less sensitive to their effects than our measurement systems, so we really need to find a measurement
process that diminishes their visibility.

Cheers.
post #68887 of 70896
I've watched the video further and Mr. Hales brings up some very good points, which makes me want to look into his points further.
post #68888 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post

I hate to lose the full benefit of the Bozaks by pegging my crossover too high. I am going to keep researching and soliciting advice, and after I run Audyssey on the new receiver tomorrow, I'm going to listen to the various combinations of crossovers and see what I can hear. But frankly, I'm pretty confused at this point. I guess that must be part of the fun in being an audiophile? rolleyes.gif

Back when I bought my first Bozaks, they and Klipsch were head-to-head competitors and so were the audio stores here that carried them. I spent many hours auditioning Bozak and Klipsch speakers, going back and forth between the separate audio stores that specialized in one or the other (never both).

Many, many people are concerned about losing the full benefit of their high quality, expensive main or surround speakers by setting the sub too high. I think people should try both, and decide by careful auditioning. The result may be different with music v.s. movies. Some pre/pros or AVRs will allow you to use the preferred method with each. Here is the trade off, as I understand it: 1) By crossing over at 80 Hz, you allow Audyssey to use very high resolution correction for all frequencies below 80. By crossing over at 60 (or 40) the frequencies between 60 (or 40) and 80 will receive less precise correction. OR 2) by crossing over at 60 (or 40) you can use your Bozak woofers that you like from there on up. The Bozak woofers are PDG, and have a great rep. Most subs are less precise at those frequencies (IMO), but your subs may be an exception, as some are. Below about 40, almost any good sub will be flatter, and you need the lower frequencies for movies. Whether you set your crossover for 40, 60 or 80, be sure your Low Pass Filter for Low Frequency Effects is set at 120 Hz. It will play movie special effects, but not affect your music from CDs, etc. (If I understand correctly).

Berkeley Custom Electronics had the Concert Grands and the Klipschorns at the same time. It was a "hole in the wall" run by a real original, Joe Minor. Years ago, John Curl, the great designer of Parasound electronics worked there. So did Don Helmholtz, later picked as "The best tech in the Bay Area" by the Bay Guardian. It was a great place to sit and listen for hours, pick brains, and BS about audio.

That "hole in the wall" does sound like a great place to go. I would have enjoyed that. Thanks for the thoughtful analysis. I have been concerned about making some sort of sonic faux pas, but I think I have addressed that concern now and can more comfortably rely on my preferences as I listen to different settings. There is a strong argument expressed in a number of places, including the FAQ, that setting the Low Pass Filter to 80 will tighten the base and reduce boominess from the sub. From reading the FAQ, I have concluded, perhaps incorrectly, that it would also have a beneficial effect on music. c)5. What is the LPF of LFE and what should it be set to?
post #68889 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post

Many, many people are concerned about losing the full benefit of their high quality, expensive main or surround speakers by setting the sub too high. 

 

The converse of that is losing the full benefit of their high quality, expensive subwoofer of course ;)

 

Quote:

Here is the trade off, as I understand it: 1) By crossing over at 80 Hz, you allow Audyssey to use very high resolution correction for all frequencies below 80. By crossing over at 60 (or 40) the frequencies between 60 (or 40) and 80 will receive less precise correction.

 

That was true before XT32 came along. XT32 uses the same resolution filters throughout.

 

h)2.   What is the difference between the various versions of MultEQ?

post #68890 of 70896
FYI, here is an exchange between Chris and myself on Facebook:


"So since the surround boost is "just a level boost", then those of us who think it is still too much boost (even with 10/15 RLO) then we can tweak our systems to our preference by simply lowering the surround levels from what Audyssey found during calibration? Curious Chris, are there any plans in future Audyssey configs to have a user changeable setting for both the surround level boost, and the frequency compensation instead of just the RLO setting that changes both?"


"HI Darryl, you can certainly change the surround level to preference from the speaker level menu. No plans to allow changes in the frequency response compensation that DEQ provides."
post #68891 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
 
There is a strong argument expressed in a number of places, including the FAQ, that setting the Low Pass Filter to 80 will tighten the base and reduce boominess from the sub. From reading the FAQ, I have concluded, perhaps incorrectly, that it would also have a beneficial effect on music. c)5. What is the LPF of LFE and what should it be set to?

 

The only 'technically correct' response is "120Hz". But Roger Dressler, among others, has suggested that there isn't usually much content deliberately put into the mix by the mixers above 80Hz anyway, and often what is in there above 80Hz is often just 'boom' and 'mush'. Roger has his LPF of LFE set to 80hz and, for many of us, that is more than good enough reason to at least give it a try. When I did it, I found that, much as Roger had suggested, the bass 'cleaned up' and 'tightened up' a little, with no apparent loss of anything that would be wanted. Roger says it has a beneficial effect on music IIRC, so again, this is a pretty reliable indicator IMO.

 

I'd suggest you do what I did - choose some content which you feel will illustrate any difference and listen with the setting at 120Hz and also at 80Hz. I don't think we are talking huge differences here, but certainly I felt a tightening of the bass when using 80Hz, so I just left it there. I realise that if a mixer does put anything in to the LFE channel at 80-120Hz I will be missing it, but I can live with that for what I perceived to be an advantage on most content. 

 

Of course, these are subjective impressions based on sighted tests, so YMMV.

post #68892 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by D Bone View Post

FYI, here is an exchange between Chris and myself on Facebook:


"So since the surround boost is "just a level boost", then those of us who think it is still too much boost (even with 10/15 RLO) then we can tweak our systems to our preference by simply lowering the surround levels from what Audyssey found during calibration? Curious Chris, are there any plans in future Audyssey configs to have a user changeable setting for both the surround level boost, and the frequency compensation instead of just the RLO setting that changes both?"


"HI Darryl, you can certainly change the surround level to preference from the speaker level menu. No plans to allow changes in the frequency response compensation that DEQ provides."

 

Does Chris ever answer the question that was asked, these days?  Are you intending to go back and ask him if he has an answer to your question? Another way to phrase it would be to ask him if they might ever give us these choices in DEQ: 1) Bass and surround boost (as currently implemented), or 2) bass boost only (no surround boost). The question you asked seemed clear enough to me, but clearly not to Chris.

 

While you are there, it might be worth asking if MultEQ is going to be developed in any way beyond the current implementation of XT32, which hasn’t changed at all now for about 3 years.

post #68893 of 70896
Quote:
I realise that if a mixer does put anything in to the LFE channel at 80-120Hz I will be missing it, but I can live with that for what I perceived to be an advantage on most content.

That's actually not true. The LPF isn't a "brick wall" but a sloped filter. Moving it from 120Hz to 80Hz is just a half octave shift in the filter. All you are doing is tapering it off at the top a little more steeply. You won't "miss" any content, you are just slightly attenuating it.

Or as Mark put it in the quote you put in the FAQ: "I think many forget that the difference between a 120Hz low pass and an 80Hz low pass is nothing more than a shelving filter. If the low pass is 4th order, the 80Hz filter is about 7dB lower at 100Hz and about 4dB at 80Hz. A 100Hz low pass setting would have about 1/2 that difference. The adjustment has more effect on shaping the LFE track's response than it does on cutting off content. If you're running the subs with a rising response on the low end which blends with the main speakers, experimenting with 80, 100 vs. 120Hz is basically a means to taper the top end of the LFE channel. Setting this lower than 120Hz is not hacking off content any more than setting your sub a few dB hot would destroy a soundtrack."
post #68894 of 70896
^^^^ Right on BP

Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post

That "hole in the wall" does sound like a great place to go. I would have enjoyed that. Thanks for the thoughtful analysis. I have been concerned about making some sort of sonic faux pas, but I think I have addressed that concern now and can more comfortably rely on my preferences as I listen to different settings. There is a strong argument expressed in a number of places, including the FAQ, that setting the Low Pass Filter to 80 will tighten the base and reduce boominess from the sub. From reading the FAQ, I have concluded, perhaps incorrectly, that it would also have a beneficial effect on music. c)5. What is the LPF of LFE and what should it be set to?

Another thing to consider is the LPF for LFE and 2 channel stereo are mutually exclusive. So for standard 2 channel sources, where there is no LFE channel, adjusting a setting that only has to do with the LFE channel will not change anything that you would hear. now 5.1 music discs would obviously be different.
post #68895 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post
 
Quote:
I realise that if a mixer does put anything in to the LFE channel at 80-120Hz I will be missing it, but I can live with that for what I perceived to be an advantage on most content.

That's actually not true. The LPF isn't a "brick wall" but a sloped filter. Moving it from 120Hz to 80Hz is just a half octave shift in the filter. All you are doing is tapering it off at the top a little more steeply. You won't "miss" any content, you are just slightly attenuating it.

Or as Mark put it in the quote you put in the FAQ: "I think many forget that the difference between a 120Hz low pass and an 80Hz low pass is nothing more than a shelving filter. If the low pass is 4th order, the 80Hz filter is about 7dB lower at 100Hz and about 4dB at 80Hz. A 100Hz low pass setting would have about 1/2 that difference. The adjustment has more effect on shaping the LFE track's response than it does on cutting off content. If you're running the subs with a rising response on the low end which blends with the main speakers, experimenting with 80, 100 vs. 120Hz is basically a means to taper the top end of the LFE channel. Setting this lower than 120Hz is not hacking off content any more than setting your sub a few dB hot would destroy a soundtrack."

 

Ah yes, thanks. I remember this now you mention it. More of an 'adjustment' than an 'elimination' as Mark Seaton describes.  But the filter used in the mix is a brick wall isn't it?  Is that what I am thinking of?  Either way, I'm not overly concerned - the 80Hz setting subjectively sounds better here. The differences are, as I said before, subtle.

post #68896 of 70896
WRT surround boost and the research done by Audyssey here's a Q&A I had with Chris on FB recently:


Ferenc Mógor: Hi Chris, please allow me a Q on DEQ's surround boost premises. Is this feature a) based on findings of human perception falling down to the sides more rapidly compared to the fronts, or b) is it a matter of restoring imaging in the middle between fronts and surrounds when MV is turned down from 0 dB reference? Or are there other reasons behind your research and implementation of this feature in DEQ? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Feri

Chris Kyriakakis: Hi Feri, CES got in the way and I didn't get to this. The answer has to do with our perception of loudness from the front and the back. Yes, we found that it falls off faster in the back and hence we need to raise the level as the volume is lowered so that the intended surround impression is maintained.

Ferenc Mógor: Thank you Chris, I was patient coz I knew it was CES time for you. As regards the subject, is this directional difference of fall off a characteristic of the human ear? Can you recommend some papers on this subject for a bit deeper follow up? Would be rather interested. Thank you in advance as always. Cheers, Feri

Chris Kyriakakis: Hi Feri, I don't have a specific reference. The experiments we did have not been published. However, if you look at the numerous head-related transfer function papers out there you will see that sound arriving from the rear hemisphere is masked more by the pinnae (above 1 kHz) than sound arriving from the front.

Ferenc Mógor: Thanks Chris. Yes, the masking effect itself is quite understandable, but the "speedier" roll-off of perception in the rear hemisphere compared to the fronts is what leaves me puzzled. But it's just me, there must be an explanation behind your research. Care to share some hints? Thx. Cheers, Feri

Chris Kyriakakis: It's not masking in the traditional sense. Higher frequencies are diminished more from the rear than the front because of our body geometries. So when the volume is turned down and combines with the loss of high frequencies we observe that the apparent loudness of rear sources is lower than that of front sources that don't have the high frequency loss problem.

Ferenc Mógor: Very interesting phenomenon Chris, indeed! But in this case does that mean DEQ is boosting (electrically) only the high frequencies that are at loss (like above 1 kHz) or is it a full band boost?

Chris Kyriakakis: You mean the surround boost? it's just a level boost that's not dependent on frequency. the frequency dependency comes from the loudness curves.


So, should it be clear to everyone by now why the loudness falls faster in the rear than up front, then it's OK. Should anyone have any more questions please feel free to join the discussion at FB, otherwise I'll be glad to transfer your question(s) to Chris. One kind request to the "Board" here would be to refrain from unnecessary bashing and stuff like that which will lead us to nowhere, please. Thank you for your kind cooperation and understanding. smile.gif
post #68897 of 70896
Thanks everybody for the various clarifications. I was already convinced that I would try mine at 80, and I hated to leave the 120 suggestion just hanging out there without questioning it. I probably needn't have been concerned as it turns out. tongue.gif
post #68898 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post

Thanks everybody for the various clarifications. I was already convinced that I would try mine at 80, and I hated to leave the 120 suggestion just hanging out there without questioning it. I probably needn't have been concerned as it turns out. tongue.gif

And it never hurts to "Try" anyways smile.gif
post #68899 of 70896

At least Chris has confirmed the flaw in their logic which has caused the surround overboost.

 

If anyone can find any corroboration on the net that sounds diminish more rapidly when coming from behind than when in front, would they please post it?  I have not been able to find one single source, other than Audyssey, which confirms this. Neither has Roger, as he confirmed in a recent post. And neither has anyone else who has looked AFAIK.

post #68900 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

At least Chris has confirmed the flaw in their logic which has caused the surround overboost.

If anyone can find any corroboration on the net that sounds diminish more rapidly when coming from behind than when in front, would they please post it?  I have not been able to find one single source, other than Audyssey, which confirms this. Neither has Roger, as he confirmed in a recent post. And neither has anyone else who has looked AFAIK.

eek.giffrown.gif
post #68901 of 70896
The real question is why Audyssey won't address this by allowing for the capability of turning the surround boost element of DEQ off, or have a feature that activates it at approximately 1 kHz (the "high surround") with some sort of smoothing effect so it's not imposed as a brick wall approach. Although I will note that Chris K. liked my comment about Audyssey Titanium representing the next level of Audyssey beyond "Audyssey Platinum" LOL on FB. Maybe there's hope.smile.gif.

Unfortunately, from reading his response, that means that DEQ is effectively Audyssey Preference, and a departure from "reference", literally.

In other news, the Cubs won't win the World Series this year, and there's no Santa Claus.

eek.gif
post #68902 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

The real question is why Audyssey won't address this by allowing for the capability of turning the surround boost element of DEQ off, or have a feature that activates it at approximately 1 kHz (the "high surround") with some sort of smoothing effect so it's not imposed as a brick wall approach. Although I will note that Chris K. liked my comment about Audyssey Titanium representing the next level of Audyssey beyond "Audyssey Platinum" LOL on FB. Maybe there's hope.smile.gif.

Unfortunately, from reading his response, that means that DEQ is effectively Audyssey Preference, and a departure from "reference", literally.

In other news, the Cubs won't win the World Series this year, and there's no Santa Claus.

eek.gif

Stu, why not ask Chris directly? BTW, I can't remember, do you have a surround boost issue in your setup? If so, did you lower the surround trims to taste?
post #68903 of 70896
^^ Just asked Chris K. as a follow-up to the FB thread - as in will they fix this? And yes, I do have a boost issue with the surrounds, which is noticeable at about -30 db (the lowest level I'd ever listen at ) to about -10 db give or take. My solution was to turn the surrounds down and only use DEQ for movies, or simply pick a listening level (I used in the high negative teens, roughly around -16 db) for BluRay and use my MiniDSP to create a sub "house curve", and leave EQ off altogether.

It's of academic interest to me, since except when the family's watching TV and controls the remote, I've switched almost exclusively to Trinnov with 3D remapping for my critical listening. But that's not an option for anyone else here LOL. And strictly speaking, I'm not an Audyssey customer but a user of an AVR from a manufacturer - Denon - that has a licensing agreement with Audyssey. None of us are (except for those of us that bought Pro Kits, and even there that's not a direct purchase from Audyssey as such).
Edited by sdrucker - 1/14/14 at 1:26pm
post #68904 of 70896
And the Oracle speaks again: it's the AVR manufacturer's fault for not dedicating enough processing power.

Stuart Drucker Chris: as you note on your answer, the masking effect for surround sound occurs at about 1 kHz and higher, but there's still the boost below 1 kHz. A feature where there was some sort of crossover for the effect with a gentle roll-off below that point to make the effect consistent would be useful. Or it's an argument for separates and using a device like a MiniDSP with surrounds when DEQ is active. I know it's "preference", but that's one solution.

Chris Kyriakakis Stuart, it's a matter of available processing power. Yes, technically the best solution would be a level dependent EQ adjustment that favors the higher frequencies. But, we don't get the processing budget allocated to do that. So, we made a simpler version that fits.

Stuart Drucker Thanks Chris. I think one day you and some AVR manufacturers need a meeting to discuss all the ways that Audyssey could be more flexible and scalable but can't be implemented in a big metal black box approach to selling hardware. It makes you appreciate the Oppo model.

Sorry, guys.
post #68905 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKO1 View Post

Good point.

Mr. Hale is correct with his point of trying to fix the off-axis frequency response to the detriment of the on-axis response. This is not just an issue for Audyssey but for all full frequency response correction equalisation. The microphone/software, which has no a priori knowledge of the loudspeaker, is attempting to correct the stuff that should be left alone. Dr. Toole identified this issue (the final point below) in one of his essays years ago (1998/99), Science in the Service of Art:
Cheers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

I've watched the video further and Mr. Hales brings up some very good points, which makes me want to look into his points further.

Great to hear. I wasn't sure if there was some sort of division on here about this, so I thought I would ask, for really both sides, or perhaps affirmation of what I heard in the video.
So really, just trying to learn from everyone's experience and knowledge!
Mr. Hales did seem to have very, very good points. Scott Wilkinson seemed to be agreeing with his points.

Now whether I should use Audyssey or not.. eek.gif
post #68906 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Player3 View Post

Hey guys, I just watched this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l1IkpzeuQI

It really, really surprised me by what I heard.
I was wondering what you guys thought about it if you had seen it? This guy seems quite credible. I'm not sure if this is even the place to ask, but I thought most Audyssey experts would be here, and I'm trying to learn!
smile.gif

I just watched it.

 

I don't think there is much in there which comes as a great surprise to many of us in this thread. He makes the point that electronic room EQ above Schroeder can do more harm than good - and we know that for this reason Audyssey made big changes to the way XT32 works for the frequencies above about 400hz, compared with XT and other versions.

 

And he makes the point that room acoustics and treatments are a better way to proceed than simple electronic EQ on its own. We'd all agree with that - get the room right and then use XT32 as the icing on the cake. But for many people, room treatments are a no-no. And for those, it is better to use electronic EQ than nothing at all. He didn't really make much of that and sort of assumed that everyone would have a really great room - but life is not like that for most people who have multi-purpose spaces, kids, pets, WAF etc to deal with.

 

Also, remember that many of his remarks are concerned with his own speakers which are ultra-directive as opposed to the typical cones and domes designs. Hands up who has speakers that are NOT cones and dome designs?  Oh yes -  almost nobody :)

 

He's also right that electronic room EQ is limited in how it can fix issues for more than one seat, whereas treatments improve the entire room.

 

I think most of what he said is well-known to a lot of us and in an ideal world, we'd all do what he says - get the room right!  But for the majority who struggle with that, Audyssey is a reasonable answer.

post #68907 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

Chris Kyriakakis Stuart, it's a matter of available processing power. Yes, technically the best solution would be a level dependent EQ adjustment that favors the higher frequencies. But, we don't get the processing budget allocated to do that. So, we made a simpler version that fits.
Finally the answer I was expecting. I've come to this conclusion about the topic quite long ago already... Those two last answers basically sums all up and explain everything. At least we got honest answer in the end.

PS. DynamicEQ is also not as advanced as it is marketed, but at least it works perceptionally OK (on the front channels at least), but there is a lot to be improved. I've found Dynamic Volume to be too straight-forward and primitive also (level-only frequency independed, sounds like single-band compression) and sounding totally wrong on dynamic content. So it is only good at leveling already compressed content such as TV shows, but unusable for movies as once action is started in the movie I can't hear voices as they are leveled down (and often a lot) together with effects. I had to touch volume a lot just to _hear_ things - something that Dynamic Volume should be improving - it made a lot worse than without it.
post #68908 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

And the Oracle speaks again: it's the AVR manufacturer's fault for not dedicating enough processing power.

Stuart Drucker Chris: as you note on your answer, the masking effect for surround sound occurs at about 1 kHz and higher, but there's still the boost below 1 kHz. A feature where there was some sort of crossover for the effect with a gentle roll-off below that point to make the effect consistent would be useful. Or it's an argument for separates and using a device like a MiniDSP with surrounds when DEQ is active. I know it's "preference", but that's one solution.

Chris Kyriakakis Stuart, it's a matter of available processing power. Yes, technically the best solution would be a level dependent EQ adjustment that favors the higher frequencies. But, we don't get the processing budget allocated to do that. So, we made a simpler version that fits.

Stuart Drucker Thanks Chris. I think one day you and some AVR manufacturers need a meeting to discuss all the ways that Audyssey could be more flexible and scalable but can't be implemented in a big metal black box approach to selling hardware. It makes you appreciate the Oppo model.

Sorry, guys.

 

A nice, simple solution, that requires no processing power at all, would be to give an option to turn off the surround channel processing in DEQ while leaving the bass boosting as it is. Also, Roger said, IIRC, that it was a fairly simple task to fix their error anyway, and I am guessing Roger knows a fair bit about the internal processing requirements in AVRs. 

post #68909 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Player3 View Post

Hey guys, I just watched this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l1IkpzeuQI

It really, really surprised me by what I heard.
It surprised me to find out that he has parametric equalization built into his power amps. This is common for pro installs (EQ in amps), but I wasn't expecting it in Hales' amps, considering his views on equalization.

In the video, he attributes a problem (drum whacks coming from all around rather than the front speakers) to equalization when instead it sounds like the crossover was set too high.

He also makes fun of a calibrator swing his head in large arcs from side to side, saying that people don't listen that way. Maybe he's not concerned with spatial variance, considering the narrow dispersion of his speakers.
post #68910 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I just watched it.

I don't think there is much in there which comes as a great surprise to many of us in this thread. He makes the point that electronic room EQ above Schroeder can do more harm than good - and we know that for this reason Audyssey made big changes to the way XT32 works for the frequencies above about 400hz, compared with XT and other versions.

And he makes the point that room acoustics and treatments are a better way to proceed than simple electronic EQ on its own. We'd all agree with that - get the room right and then use XT32 as the icing on the cake. But for many people, room treatments are a no-no. And for those, it is better to use electronic EQ than nothing at all. He didn't really make much of that and sort of assumed that everyone would have a really great room - but life is not like that for most people who have multi-purpose spaces, kids, pets, WAF etc to deal with.

Also, remember that many of his remarks are concerned with his own speakers which are ultra-directive as opposed to the typical cones and domes designs. Hands up who has speakers that are NOT cones and dome designs?  Oh yes -  almost nobody smile.gif

He's also right that electronic room EQ is limited in how it can fix issues for more than one seat, whereas treatments improve the entire room.

I think most of what he said is well-known to a lot of us and in an ideal world, we'd all do what he says - get the room right!  But for the majority who struggle with that, Audyssey is a reasonable answer.

Right, I didn't really expect it to come as a surprise, I figured many of you would already have been told this. I however, haven't. So it did come as a surprise to me, as I had never really thought about those points, and it struck me how logical it seemed.

I totally agree with most struggling with their room, and simply can't design a great one, don't have ultra-directive speakers, aren't able to create a true home theater, etc.,
I'm trying to figure out the direction I should be heading myself, as I'm really aspiring for the best sound that I could possibly have, and trying to figure out the means to get there! smile.gif
My receiver has Audyssey XT, and I'm trying to decide whether to use it or not.
And whether to invest in getting an Audyssey XT32 receiver, or buying acoustic absorbers and diffusers. wink.gif
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)