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 2298

post #68911 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

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.

But he provides totally wrong reasoning on that, claiming our head transfer function has something to do with it, and so - wrongly concluding that anything above Schroeder is universally bad.

Actually I can agree that with ultra-directive speakers he produces there could be problems with the approach discussed. But this high directivity itself is something that doesn't make a good speaker in my book in first place. And providing false reasoning on the problem while protecting his speakers doesn't add my respect to his whole talk. He still hits some truthful things sometimes, but they sound pretty random hits, and not a proper explanation.
post #68912 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Player3 View Post

And whether to invest in getting an Audyssey XT32 receiver, or buying acoustic absorbers and diffusers. wink.gif
Do both wink.gif
post #68913 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

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.

But he provides totally wrong reasoning on that, claiming our head transfer function has something to do with it, and so - wrongly concluding that anything above Schroeder is universally bad.
 

 

Good point - I missed that.

post #68914 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Player3 View Post
 
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

 

The best sound will come, in large part, from treating the room (the room has the biggest influence on what you hear). If you can't treat the room, then XT32 is going to be helpful in taming some of the problems at least. Of course, if you can treat the room AND apply electronic EQ, then that will be better yet. 

 

XT32 is a very significant step up from XT and if you are thinking of changing the AVR, then I would 100% recommend you choose one with XT32.

 

You can also achieve a fair bit by optimising the location of your speakers and sub in the room, and that is a no-cost option too. 

post #68915 of 70911
More from FB as I pressed Chris on the surround boost:

Q: Chris if all of the above is true why does the boost get it "wrong" when there is content in the surrounds with equal loudness and spectral balance as the front speakers? Video games are the most obvious example, where if you pan a sound around you it will noticeably jump in volume as it hits the surrounds. You even mused at one point in the past about a "game mode" for DEQ which retained the loudness comp but turned off the surround boost. Playing stereo music in multich stereo mode is another example, where the soundstage will seem to shift to the back of the room as the surrounds are playing the same exact content as the fronts, just louder.

Or to put it another way, if it's a global psychoacoustic phenomenon, why does it seem to fail with certain types of content? Why would there need to be a caveat about video games if it's a fundamental property of how we hear?

A: Video games don't count because the content is moving dynamically and is not mixed in a static environment with predetermined front and rear content.

Q: Chris so then doesn't that imply that it's content dependent? I'm not sure I understand completely -- if it's a global phenomenon of our auditory anatomy, why would it matter if a piece of content is "predetermined" to be behind us?

And if it is content dependent, why not allow a separation of loudness compensation from the surround boost?

A: The goal is to recreate the original movie mix at more normal (lower than ear splitting reference) levels. When they mixed at those high levels they made some decisions on what the intended surround levels should in every scene. When we turn the volume down, those levels appear lower relative to the fronts and so the soundstage collapses more to the front. This is true for all movies and I guess surround music (if there's any left). Games don't have a "fixed perspective" if they are first person type so there is no predetermined notion of a balanced front-rear mix. Some games, like my favorite FIFA 14, do. The crowd was intended to be behind us and is mixed that way. DEQ works well for that.

Q: So then the surround boost IS content specific? Unlike loudness comp which is content agnostic?

If seems that this supports the idea that the two should be separate settings.

Chris would it be fair to say that if you removed the DSP resource limitation that a more effective solution would be to actively monitor the content in the surround channels and "shape" the boost based on frequency and loudness of the surround content? So instead of having a fixed level boost based on the MV setting, it could vary the boost based on the level and spectral balance of the surround content and turn it down (or off completely) as needed, on the fly?

Even with movies I can hear the boost in certain situations, for example if a helicopter flies "over" the listener I will hear a rise in level when it hits the surround channels. If DEQ could sense that in this situation the surround content is of equal loudness as the fronts, it would diminish the level boost and perhaps just do a little frequency shaping to account for the HRTF related high frequency loss.

A: Yes, that would be a good thing. But... only if we had a known reference of what it should be adjusted to. Still won't help with first person games where there is no reference (by design).
post #68916 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

If you have XLR's I'd try that, nothing to lose.

Thanks for the suggestion. I don't have XLRs, but would purchase them if they would help. Looking at the specs, the AV7005 outputs 1.2V unbalanced and 2.4V balanced.

The specs for the Outlaw 7500 show a voltage gain of 28 dB for RCA and 34 dB for XLR.

Are these the relevant specs and how do I interpret them? Do they suggest less need for attenuators using XLR?

Thanks again.
post #68917 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

The best sound will come, in large part, from treating the room (the room has the biggest influence on what you hear). If you can't treat the room, then XT32 is going to be helpful in taming some of the problems at least. Of course, if you can treat the room AND apply electronic EQ, then that will be better yet. 

XT32 is a very significant step up from XT and if you are thinking of changing the AVR, then I would 100% recommend you choose one with XT32.

You can also achieve a fair bit by optimising the location of your speakers and sub in the room, and that is a no-cost option too. 

Well, I would change my AVR if Audyssey was really worth having even after treating the room, if XT32 was a big enough benefit over what I have. As I'm not convinced my Audyssey currently is the best solution.. as I noticed a significant loss in high frequencies over no Audyssey.(although I like much of what Audyssey does do)

My perception was that Hales made it sound as if direct sound is what your ears and brain really pick up on primarily, and that Audyssey and other room-correction software, makes the direct sound(primary sound) worse, and makes the sound from reflections(secondary sound) better.

Certainly, whether Hales is defending his speakers or not, the reason they sell them is because of sound, no?
I mean I doubt speakers like that are very cheap, and certainly not aesthetically pleasing, and they're not selling because of brand name-fame, so how else could they sell?

Does XT32 eliminate some of those issues that they were talking about in the video, or is it just simply 32x higher resolution EQ'ing over XT?
post #68918 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Player3 View Post

As I'm not convinced my Audyssey currently is the best solution.. as I noticed a significant loss in high frequencies over no Audyssey.(although I like much of what Audyssey does do)

With your current XT? If you have a choice between Audyssey Flat and Audyssey (or Audyssey Music and Audyssey Reference, or however your AVR or preamp company decided to label it), Audyssey Flat should not produce a loss of high frequencies, unless you had high frequency peaks before processing. Just plain Audyssey should diminish the high frequences by about -2 dB at 10K and - 6 dB at 20K, as is appropriate for the majority of movies that are not already rolled off at the top. Some are pre-rolled-off -- a misguided policy, IMO -- and I wish they would at least label them.

Weirdly, on my system, the Audyssey rolled off top octave sometimes sounds like it has more high frequencies (pleasantly), possibly because I then don't hear the "hash" on some bad soundtracks, mostly older soundtracks from the '50s and '60s that were originally magnetic -- were they damaged, or just a bit "hashy" to begin with? I've heard that the best theaters back then had speakers that rolled off at 11/12K (even though magnetic soundtracks went up to 16K, potentially 20K), so maybe the Audyssey roll-off just (coincidentally) simulates that roll off.
post #68919 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by music1685 View Post

Thanks for the suggestion. I don't have XLRs, but would purchase them if they would help. Looking at the specs, the AV7005 outputs 1.2V unbalanced and 2.4V balanced.

The specs for the Outlaw 7500 show a voltage gain of 28 dB for RCA and 34 dB for XLR.

Are these the relevant specs and how do I interpret them? Do they suggest less need for attenuators using XLR?

Thanks again.



I'm not sure how you would determine if they are a match or if the XLR's would help or not. I would post on the 7005 thread and I'd bet someone there is using that amp.
post #68920 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by music1685 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

If you have XLR's I'd try that, nothing to lose.

Thanks for the suggestion. I don't have XLRs, but would purchase them if they would help. Looking at the specs, the AV7005 outputs 1.2V unbalanced and 2.4V balanced.

The specs for the Outlaw 7500 show a voltage gain of 28 dB for RCA and 34 dB for XLR.

Are these the relevant specs and how do I interpret them? Do they suggest less need for attenuators using XLR?

Thanks again.
Higher output voltage (2.4V) plus higher gain (34dB) means that more attenuation would be needed, not less.
post #68921 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

More from FB as I pressed Chris on the surround boost:

Q: Chris if all of the above is true why does the boost get it "wrong" when there is content in the surrounds with equal loudness and spectral balance as the front speakers? Video games are the most obvious example, where if you pan a sound around you it will noticeably jump in volume as it hits the surrounds. You even mused at one point in the past about a "game mode" for DEQ which retained the loudness comp but turned off the surround boost. Playing stereo music in multich stereo mode is another example, where the soundstage will seem to shift to the back of the room as the surrounds are playing the same exact content as the fronts, just louder.

Or to put it another way, if it's a global psychoacoustic phenomenon, why does it seem to fail with certain types of content? Why would there need to be a caveat about video games if it's a fundamental property of how we hear?

A: Video games don't count because the content is moving dynamically and is not mixed in a static environment with predetermined front and rear content.

Q: Chris so then doesn't that imply that it's content dependent? I'm not sure I understand completely -- if it's a global phenomenon of our auditory anatomy, why would it matter if a piece of content is "predetermined" to be behind us?

And if it is content dependent, why not allow a separation of loudness compensation from the surround boost?

A: The goal is to recreate the original movie mix at more normal (lower than ear splitting reference) levels. When they mixed at those high levels they made some decisions on what the intended surround levels should in every scene. When we turn the volume down, those levels appear lower relative to the fronts and so the soundstage collapses more to the front. This is true for all movies and I guess surround music (if there's any left). Games don't have a "fixed perspective" if they are first person type so there is no predetermined notion of a balanced front-rear mix. Some games, like my favorite FIFA 14, do. The crowd was intended to be behind us and is mixed that way. DEQ works well for that.

Q: So then the surround boost IS content specific? Unlike loudness comp which is content agnostic?

If seems that this supports the idea that the two should be separate settings.

Chris would it be fair to say that if you removed the DSP resource limitation that a more effective solution would be to actively monitor the content in the surround channels and "shape" the boost based on frequency and loudness of the surround content? So instead of having a fixed level boost based on the MV setting, it could vary the boost based on the level and spectral balance of the surround content and turn it down (or off completely) as needed, on the fly?

Even with movies I can hear the boost in certain situations, for example if a helicopter flies "over" the listener I will hear a rise in level when it hits the surround channels. If DEQ could sense that in this situation the surround content is of equal loudness as the fronts, it would diminish the level boost and perhaps just do a little frequency shaping to account for the HRTF related high frequency loss.

A: Yes, that would be a good thing. But... only if we had a known reference of what it should be adjusted to. Still won't help with first person games where there is no reference (by design).

 

He first appears to not 'get it' and gives an obfuscating response but then when you press him he sort of admits there is a problem, but says they can't fix it (due to DSP limitations in the AVRs).

 

 

"When we turn the volume down, those levels appear lower relative to the fronts and so the soundstage collapses more to the front." This is the same flaw that caused the problem - the unique (to Audyssey) belief that sounds fall away more rapidly when they come from behind than they do when they come from the front, as level is diminished. This is the claim for which there appears to be not one single piece of corroboration on the entire Internet.

 

I liked your forensic line of questioning, leading him to finally admit (sort of) to a problem.

 

I knew as soon as you mentioned games he would use that as a lifeline. Notice he ignored your other examples - all channel stereo and the helicopter flypass.

post #68922 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Player3 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

The best sound will come, in large part, from treating the room (the room has the biggest influence on what you hear). If you can't treat the room, then XT32 is going to be helpful in taming some of the problems at least. Of course, if you can treat the room AND apply electronic EQ, then that will be better yet. 

XT32 is a very significant step up from XT and if you are thinking of changing the AVR, then I would 100% recommend you choose one with XT32.

You can also achieve a fair bit by optimising the location of your speakers and sub in the room, and that is a no-cost option too. 

Well, I would change my AVR if Audyssey was really worth having even after treating the room, if XT32 was a big enough benefit over what I have. As I'm not convinced my Audyssey currently is the best solution.. as I noticed a significant loss in high frequencies over no Audyssey.(although I like much of what Audyssey does do)

 

Even if you treat the room extensively, it is likely you will still have unresolved issues. Using Audyssey after treating the room is very beneficial in ameliorating the last of the issues. Audyssey works better the better the room is to begin with as it is able to allocate more resources to fewer problems. Even Pro studios and mixing rooms usually apply some electronic EQ as well as all the other countermeasures. many of us in this thread have heavily treated rooms, but none of us would be without Audyssey XT32 as well. Not only can we hear audible benefits when engaging XT32 but we can clearly see those benefits when we measure the room post-Audyssey.

 

You have XT. XT has been shown to have 'issues' with the higher frequencies and can introduce some form of audible distortion in some circumstances. This was fixed in XT32 where the algorithms treat the HF differently to the way they handle it in XT. XT32 is a substantial step up from XT, both in how it handles the LF and in how it handles the HF.

 

Quote:

 My perception was that Hales made it sound as if direct sound is what your ears and brain really pick up on primarily, and that Audyssey and other room-correction software, makes the direct sound(primary sound) worse, and makes the sound from reflections(secondary sound) better.

 

He has a view on that. The view is shared by some and not by others. How one handles reflections, and why, is a massive subject in its own right and this isn't the place to do into it. It will depend on the model one is using, the objectives, personal preference, the type of use the room is put to (stereo, or m/ch, music or HT etc).

 

 

Quote:

 Certainly, whether Hales is defending his speakers or not, the reason they sell them is because of sound, no?
I mean I doubt speakers like that are very cheap, and certainly not aesthetically pleasing, and they're not selling because of brand name-fame, so how else could they sell?

 

I have worked in advertising all my life. Trust me - I can sell you anything ;)  Seriously, his speakers will appeal to those who subscribe to his 'philosophy' and those who have rooms that are suitable for them. Many people would run a mile from ultra-directive speakers like his (as shown in his diagram) precisely because of their impact on wanted (by them) reflections. It is unsafe to conclude that because he readily sells the speakers then everything he says about room correction is true or correct. There are equally qualified, or better qualified, people who would disagree with him. Chris Kyriakakis, for example, the CTO of Audyssey, who is (I believe) a PhD level acoustician. 

 

 

Quote:

 Does XT32 eliminate some of those issues that they were talking about in the video, or is it just simply 32x higher resolution EQ'ing over XT?
 

XT32 is the best electronic room correction you can buy, at an affordable (ie less than five figures) price. It is not a replacement for acoustic treatments, proper speaker selection or optimized speaker and sub location. Used in conjunction with the other tools available to us from our acoustic armory, XT32 will improve the sound you hear in your room. Used without those other tools, it will do its best to improve the sound you hear in your room. XT32 is significantly superior to XT not only by way of higher filter resolution but also by way of improved algorithms as mentioned above. 

post #68923 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

XT32 is the best electronic room correction you can buy, at an affordable (ie less than five figures) price. It is not a replacement for acoustic treatments, proper speaker selection or optimized speaker and sub location. Used in conjunction with the other tools available to us from our acoustic armory, XT32 will improve the sound you hear in your room. Used without those other tools, it will do its best to improve the sound you hear in your room. XT32 is significantly superior to XT not only by way of higher filter resolution but also by way of improved algorithms as mentioned above. 

Well thank you very much for your feedback and input. Your thoughts and knowledge has been very helpful to me.
IMO, it does seem like a lot of Hales' reasoning is logical, and I'm sure someone like Chris Kyriakakis has some good points as well, but I think in the end it's about how it sounds! And that's really what you're advocating for I think, and I can't argue with that! smile.gif
And whether it's with Audyssey XT32 that it sounds the best or without it, I think it's worth trying based on what you've said!

Is there any variation between Audyssey XT32 quality or implementation in different AVR's? Or is it all the same?
post #68924 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Player3 View Post



Is there any variation between Audyssey XT32 quality or implementation in different AVR's? Or is it all the same?

There has never been any indication of a variance in the quality of XT32 implementations across AVR manufacturers. However, Sub EQ HT, one of the compelling features IMO, is missing on at least one XT32 AVR, the Onkyo 818.
post #68925 of 70911
^^
And the following year's Onkyo 929 as well.
post #68926 of 70911
Makes me wonder why onkyo is so hesitant to get that tech in their AVR's. Integra does correct?
post #68927 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

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.
That's odd. The few times I've used Dynamic Volume, my experience has been the opposite of yours.

With DV in use, I could turn down the Main Volume a LOT, while maintaining dialogue intelligibility. As I understand it, DV is supposedly designed around human voices and the compression is designed to raise the level of dialogue while compressing dynamic sounds (explosions etc.) and this is exactly how it works in my setup. With DV OFF, I can't make out the dialogue in most movies with the MV below -30db. With DV ON, I can turn the MV down to -55db and still hear the dialogue clearly, while not disturbing anyone sleeping in the house when explosions happen. Fortunately, I rarely ever have to use it for movie viewing these days, though I tend to have it on for TV, as it prevents ads from sounding 3 times louder than the program material.


Max
post #68928 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Makes me wonder why onkyo is so hesitant to get that tech in their AVR's. Integra does correct?
The whole reason they limit features in the Onkyo line vs Integra is an attempt to push sales to the 'installer aimed' Integra line. Everywhere else in the rest of the world, the xx09 Onkyo's were Pro-ready. Everywhere except the USA that is. AFAIK, there aren't any hardware differences between the US vs rest of the world units that would limit this ability. Onkyo simply chose not to provide the option to push folks looking for it to the Integra line, which were effectively the same item with a slightly different exterior and name on the face.


Max
post #68929 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

The whole reason they limit features in the Onkyo line vs Integra is an attempt to push sales to the 'installer aimed' Integra line. Everywhere else in the rest of the world, the xx09 Onkyo's were Pro-ready. Everywhere except the USA that is. AFAIK, there aren't any hardware differences between the US vs rest of the world units that would limit this ability. Onkyo simply chose not to provide the option to push folks looking for it to the Integra line, which were effectively the same item with a slightly different exterior and name on the face.


Max

Nothing like the marketing imperative.....some call it brand equity, improving the value of the brand, others call it manipulating the consumer. The difference is up to you smile.gif
post #68930 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

That's odd. The few times I've used Dynamic Volume, my experience has been the opposite of yours.

With DV in use, I could turn down the Main Volume a LOT, while maintaining dialogue intelligibility. V, as it prevents ads from sounding 3 times louder than the program material.


Max

I have used it for movies where the dialogue was much too soft compared to the explosions and firefights, especially when listening with others who don't like the explosions. I adjust the volume to where I want it for dialogue and then I turn on Dynamic Volume. The voices remain audible and the explosions aren't so deafening.
post #68931 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Player3 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

XT32 is the best electronic room correction you can buy, at an affordable (ie less than five figures) price. It is not a replacement for acoustic treatments, proper speaker selection or optimized speaker and sub location. Used in conjunction with the other tools available to us from our acoustic armory, XT32 will improve the sound you hear in your room. Used without those other tools, it will do its best to improve the sound you hear in your room. XT32 is significantly superior to XT not only by way of higher filter resolution but also by way of improved algorithms as mentioned above. 

Well thank you very much for your feedback and input. Your thoughts and knowledge has been very helpful to me.
IMO, it does seem like a lot of Hales' reasoning is logical, and I'm sure someone like Chris Kyriakakis has some good points as well, but I think in the end it's about how it sounds! And that's really what you're advocating for I think, and I can't argue with that! smile.gif
And whether it's with Audyssey XT32 that it sounds the best or without it, I think it's worth trying based on what you've said!

Is there any variation between Audyssey XT32 quality or implementation in different AVR's? Or is it all the same?

 

The generally accepted view is that all implementations of XT32 are the same.

 

EDIT to add: Jerry is right that some units don't feature SubEQ HT, but SubEQ HT isn’t part of XT32 - it's an additional, separate thing that is normally bundled with XT32. If you only have one sub, or if your subs are identical and equidistant from the MLP, the loss of SubEQ HT isn't too much to worry about.


Edited by kbarnes701 - 1/16/14 at 5:03am
post #68932 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

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.
That's odd. The few times I've used Dynamic Volume, my experience has been the opposite of yours.

With DV in use, I could turn down the Main Volume a LOT, while maintaining dialogue intelligibility. As I understand it, DV is supposedly designed around human voices and the compression is designed to raise the level of dialogue while compressing dynamic sounds (explosions etc.) and this is exactly how it works in my setup. With DV OFF, I can't make out the dialogue in most movies with the MV below -30db. With DV ON, I can turn the MV down to -55db and still hear the dialogue clearly, while not disturbing anyone sleeping in the house when explosions happen. Fortunately, I rarely ever have to use it for movie viewing these days, though I tend to have it on for TV, as it prevents ads from sounding 3 times louder than the program material.


Max

 

I am fortunate that I never need to use Dynamic Volume, but I have experimented with it to see how it works and my experience was the same as yours. In fact, I was impressed how dialog clarity remained pretty much the same even as I turned the MV down and down. What was neutered, as expected, were the 'splosions and gun shots and so on. They just got quieter and quieter in relation to the dialog, exactly as expected. Having experienced it working, I am so glad that I don't need to use it though!  It's a real fun limiter control!

post #68933 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Makes me wonder why onkyo is so hesitant to get that tech in their AVR's. Integra does correct?
The whole reason they limit features in the Onkyo line vs Integra is an attempt to push sales to the 'installer aimed' Integra line. Everywhere else in the rest of the world, the xx09 Onkyo's were Pro-ready. Everywhere except the USA that is. AFAIK, there aren't any hardware differences between the US vs rest of the world units that would limit this ability. Onkyo simply chose not to provide the option to push folks looking for it to the Integra line, which were effectively the same item with a slightly different exterior and name on the face.


Max

 

I agree with your reasoning, but I wouldn’t complain too much - here in the UK, our Onkyos cost a good 50% more than they cost in the US! 

post #68934 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbarach View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

That's odd. The few times I've used Dynamic Volume, my experience has been the opposite of yours.

With DV in use, I could turn down the Main Volume a LOT, while maintaining dialogue intelligibility. V, as it prevents ads from sounding 3 times louder than the program material.


Max

I have used it for movies where the dialogue was much too soft compared to the explosions and firefights, especially when listening with others who don't like the explosions. I adjust the volume to where I want it for dialogue and then I turn on Dynamic Volume. The voices remain audible and the explosions aren't so deafening.

 

:eek:

 

Who are these guys?  Ban then from your HT immediately!  LOL!

post #68935 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

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.
That's odd. The few times I've used Dynamic Volume, my experience has been the opposite of yours.

With DV in use, I could turn down the Main Volume a LOT, while maintaining dialogue intelligibility. As I understand it, DV is supposedly designed around human voices and the compression is designed to raise the level of dialogue while compressing dynamic sounds (explosions etc.) and this is exactly how it works in my setup. With DV OFF, I can't make out the dialogue in most movies with the MV below -30db. With DV ON, I can turn the MV down to -55db and still hear the dialogue clearly, while not disturbing anyone sleeping in the house when explosions happen. Fortunately, I rarely ever have to use it for movie viewing these days, though I tend to have it on for TV, as it prevents ads from sounding 3 times louder than the program material.


Max

I use DV all the time and MOST of the time it works very well as Max describes. However, I have definitely heard the effect that Igor describes. It's important to remember that DV is not a dumb "compressor" in the traditional sense of just squishing down the dynamic range; it's actually using a look ahead buffer and turning up/down the volume in advance of dynamic swings, trying to keep dialogue at a steady level but reduce the impact of 'splosions and whatnot (and also raise the level of the soft stuff). This works well a lot of the time to allow you to watch a movie at very low volume while keeping the dialogue audible and constraining the loud stuff, but if you have a situation where there is dialogue layered in with heavy effects, the situation Igor describes can occur where he little DV gremlin turns the volume down and the dialogue gets leveled down too and becomes lost in the mud.

However, the situation IMO is fairly rare and I think few people but our overdramatic friend would deem it "unusable" since so many people use it wink.gif
post #68936 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post
 
I use DV all the time [...] but if you have a situation where there is dialogue layered in with heavy effects, the situation Igor describes can occur where he little DV gremlin turns the volume down and the dialogue gets leveled down too and becomes lost in the mud.

 

Ah right... if the dialog is over the explosions for example?  This does happen in quite a lot of action movies from time to time. I am usually impressed at how well the mixers do their work, so that the dialog AND the explosions can both be heard. But I can see why DV would get confused. Interesting.

post #68937 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

The generally accepted view is that all implementations of XT32 are the same.

EDIT to add: Jerry is right that some units don't feature SubEQ HT, but SubEQ HT isn’t part of XT32 - it's an additional, separate thing that is normally bundled with XT32. If you only have one sub, or if your subs are identical and equidistant from the MLP, the loss of SubEQ HT isn't too much to worry about.
https://audyssey.zendesk.com/entries/20953442-SubEQ-HT-vs-MultEQ-XT32
post #68938 of 70911
Both Onkyo and Integra brands include equipment models with XT32 which include SubEQ and some which do not. For details, see the equipment list provided in the PDF linked in the Audyssey FAQ at a)14. Which current AVRs have which version of Audyssey room correction?
post #68939 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbarach View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

That's odd. The few times I've used Dynamic Volume, my experience has been the opposite of yours.

With DV in use, I could turn down the Main Volume a LOT, while maintaining dialogue intelligibility. V, as it prevents ads from sounding 3 times louder than the program material.


Max

I have used it for movies where the dialogue was much too soft compared to the explosions and firefights, especially when listening with others who don't like the explosions. I adjust the volume to where I want it for dialogue and then I turn on Dynamic Volume. The voices remain audible and the explosions aren't so deafening.
You've mentioned this method of using DV before and the last time you mentioned it, it got me curious enough to try it and the DV in my Onkyo 5008 doesn't seem to work that way.

The impression I got from your comments was that you could set the MV where you found the dialogue level appropriate, THEN turn on DV and it would maintain that dialogue level and compress anything loud. From that description, if I had DV OFF and turned the MV down to -45db, THEN turned DV ON, the dialogue would be below my noise floor and unintelligible and everything else would be compressed to match.

The implementation in my 5008 is NOT in this manner though. My implementation demonstrates an Audyssey preference, i.e. Audyssey determined how loud they should raise the dialogue based on how far the MV is from Reference.

If I turn the MV to -55db with DV OFF, the dialogue is definitely too soft to make out. The moment I turn DV ON, it bumps the dialogue level up loud enough to be audible.

There IS of course, adjustability. Turning the MV up or down with DV ON adjusts the volume BUT because of DV's dialogue compensation, it sounds like the dialogue level only decreases 1-2db for every 5db the MV is turned down. All the other sound levels seem to drop normally with the MV.

Then of course, there are the DV levels (Light, Medium, Heavy) that dictate the amount of compression applied.

I have to say, even if it uses an Audyssey Preference to determine the dialogue level, I found that it works amazingly well for its purposes. I can see how it would be very useful for folks with thin walls and sensitive neighbours/little ones etc. DV seems to be a much better solution than the other compression solutions.


Max
post #68940 of 70911
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post



"When we turn the volume down, those levels appear lower relative to the fronts and so the soundstage collapses more to the front." This is the same flaw that caused the problem - the unique (to Audyssey) belief that sounds fall away more rapidly when they come from behind than they do when they come from the front, as level is diminished. This is the claim for which there appears to be not one single piece of corroboration on the entire Internet.

Today evening I also succeded to download the "entire Internet" and guess what? Even I didn't find anything worthwhile to share here. So I also agree: if its not on the entire Internet it is flawed!!!!!!

P.S. Internet downloaded quite quickly after applying an "Adult material" filter!!!!!!!!!! LOL

Take care guys! smile.gif
Edited by mogorf - 1/16/14 at 2:35pm
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)