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 2309

post #69241 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

^^ If this is a debate, I'm always up for a good one smile.gif

Out with the laser sabers, digitally yours! smile.gif
post #69242 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Not many are interested in mo info, and not many are wondering about a flaw whistel-blown by a single man's approach compiling/editing his lonely FAQ. Should be quite obvious, eh? smile.gifcool.giftongue.gifwink.gifbiggrin.gif

Next?



If XT was the cats meow there would be no need for XT32 eh? tongue.gif
post #69243 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

If XT was the cats meow there would be no need for XT32 eh? tongue.gif

With the advent of the Big Cat 32 over the block the little cat (xt) still can "meow" in the alley with its voice heard, right?

Heck with it, gimme a break please for doing "mind jobs" to create anologies. On the contrary it is a great mind job experience, indeed! LOL smile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gif

Take care! smile.gif
post #69244 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

With the advent of the Big Cat 32 over the block the little cat (xt) still can "meow" in the alley with its voice heard, right?

Heck with it, gimme a break please for doing "mind jobs" to create anologies. On the contrary it is a great mind job experience, indeed! LOL smile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gif

Take care! smile.gif



Woof tongue.gif

Edit;
By the way I'm not saying XT isn't any good and I don't have any experience with it.
Edited by comfynumb - 1/22/14 at 6:22pm
post #69245 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbaucom View Post

I do think there is a noticeable difference between mono and decorrelated bass. I can definitely tell the difference in my setup. I have tried it both ways. A little of the slam is lost for movies but for music I think it makes things sound more natural. The best I can describe it is the bass seems more all around the room instead of restricted to a specific area.
Your description is exactly what I experienced when running my 2 subs in stereo bass configuration. The low frequencies sounded externalized (all around me) rather than the typical monophonic in-your-chest effect I hear in most home theatres. Since it can be subtle, I maximized the effect by placing my subs directly to the sides of my listening position.
post #69246 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

If anything, two things are clear to me: a) any version of Audyssey before XT32 by definition is an incomplete Audyssey product, or XT32 would not exist and b) there's no such thing as reference Audyssey, just an automated version of Chris K.'s preferences on a DSP chip, with marketing power behind them, and filtered through the decisions about bass management made by individual manufacturers.
Indeed the word "reference" has slowly been disappearing from their website over the years, with much less usage now than when the site first went up. Somewhat agree about your first point, though not as diplomatically ("incomplete") as you put it. The first time the possibility that it could do more-harm-than-good came up was in Olive's 2009 room correction comparison. Measurements posted in this thread since then have helped explain those results.
post #69247 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Indeed the word "reference" has slowly been disappearing from their website over the years, with much less usage now than when the site first went up. Somewhat agree about your first point, though not as diplomatically ("incomplete") as you put it. The first time the possibility that it could do more-harm-than-good came up was in Olive's 2009 room correction comparison. Measurements posted in this thread since then have helped explain those results.

Sanjay, as you also know:

1. Olive's 2009 RC comparision was heavily biased by,...um...Olive...and as such it served marketing pusposes for,...um...Olive...
2. Measurements posted in this thread since then have not been followed up by careful and controlled listening tests and reports.

My 2 cents. cool.gif
post #69248 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

If anyone is wondering what the 'flaw' in XT is (see recent posts above), more information can be found here:


a)1. Are there any significant differences between MultEQ XT32 and MultEQ XT/MultEQ/2EQ?

^^ If this is a debate, I'm always up for a good one smile.gif.

But I don't think that the conclusion is in doubt, anymore than Windows superceding DOS was a subject for debate about superior OS. And whatever IMAX did or didn't do beyond Audyssey XT is an academic matter, because a several hundred seat theater and an HT room are fundamentally different things.

If anything, two things are clear to me: a) any version of Audyssey before XT32 by definition is an incomplete Audyssey product, or XT32 would not exist and b) there's no such thing as reference Audyssey, just an automated version of Chris K.'s preferences on a DSP chip, with marketing power behind them, and filtered through the decisions about bass management made by individual manufacturers.

 

Yes, I’d agree with that 100%. But there is no debate - the issue has been proven beyond reasonable doubt (as you say).

 

Just one additional comment on the 'single man' approach LOL. It seems that not everyone has read the Addendum. For those who do it is clear that, far from being a single POV about the flawed nature of XT, the view is supported by (among others) Roger Dressler, yourself, Igor, Max, Rickard, Sanjay, batpig, Mathias Johansson, Sean Olive and, arguably, even Chris Kyriakakis himself!  Not to mention the objective evidence. 

 

Seed for thought eh? Whaddya think?  :);):eek::confused: 

 

Edited (without permission) to add: Sanjay and Sean Olive!


Edited by kbarnes701 - 1/23/14 at 2:46am
post #69249 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

If anything, two things are clear to me: a) any version of Audyssey before XT32 by definition is an incomplete Audyssey product, or XT32 would not exist and b) there's no such thing as reference Audyssey, just an automated version of Chris K.'s preferences on a DSP chip, with marketing power behind them, and filtered through the decisions about bass management made by individual manufacturers.
Indeed the word "reference" has slowly been disappearing from their website over the years, with much less usage now than when the site first went up. Somewhat agree about your first point, though not as diplomatically ("incomplete") as you put it. The first time the possibility that it could do more-harm-than-good came up was in Olive's 2009 room correction comparison. Measurements posted in this thread since then have helped explain those results.

 

Blimey - I'd forgotten Sean Olive was on board as well!  Add him to the list of 'big beasts'. LOL.

post #69250 of 70896

It is worth noting that the title of Sean Olive's report, obliquely mentioned above, is "The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products". Anyone who has read this report will be aware that, as the title suggests, substantial (subjective) listening tests were performed in addition to the objective measurements made. Thus, it is not true that measurements have not been followed up by careful and controlled listening tests and reports. This applies not only to Olive's tests but also to measurements made in this (and other AVS) thread(s) where measurements have in all cases been followed by careful listening evaluation. Indeed, Igor went to great lengths to give his own subjective report based on listening tests and how what he measured correlates with what he hears, as did Rickard whose subjective comments are in the FAQ Addendum.

 

The slides from Olive's 2009 AES Keynote Presentation can be found by clicking the link above. The two most pertinent to the discussion at hand are below:

 

 

 

 

 

Although Olive, at the time, did not identify the Room Correction systems, it has become subsequently widely agreed that Audyssey is in fact RC6. The AES Convention took place in October 2009 (Reference). As XT32 was not introduced until August 2010 (Reference) it is clear that the Audyssey system under test must have been XT, or one of the other 'lesser' flavours (MultEQ/2EQ).

 

RC6, as can be seen above, comes into the category of "no better or worse than no EQ at all". The narrative accompanying the slides reveals that RC6 is in fact "worse than no EQ" in the rankings of the testees. This is confirmed in Sean Olive's blog (Reference) where he says "However, one of the room corrections (RC5) was equally rated to the no correction treatment (RC4), and one of the room corrections (RC6) was rated much worse. Overall, the sound quality of RC6 was rated "very poor" based on the semantic definitions of the preference scale". One will note from the legend on the first chart above that listeners described RC6 using words such as "colored, harsh, thin, forward, muffled and bright".

 

As one would expect from one of the leading researchers in the industry, the tests were conducted under impeccable criteria:

 

  • Room corrections loudness normalized within 0.1 dB according to CRC loudness meter
  • 8 trained listeners with normal hearing
  • MUSHRA (no EQ is hidden reference) 
  • Double-blind
  • Room corrections and program order randomized

 

I believe that the fact that Olive chose not to reveal the brand makes of the REQ systems under test shows clearly that he had no biased agenda and that the results could not possibly be used for 'marketing purposes'.

 

I have no doubt that the results would have been somewhat different if the Audyssey version under test was XT32, but this was, unfortunately, not in existence at the time of the Olive tests.

 

As an aside, I wonder if IMAX have seen these results? ;)


Edited by kbarnes701 - 1/23/14 at 3:54am
post #69251 of 70896
This discussion (debate) IMHO is taking us nowhere and as I see its escalating into fields that have nothing to do with the original issue: the use of the word "flawed" for a previous product.

OK, for the time being I'd like to suggest to put aside Audyssey RC and think of the followings in general.

In my experience I have never seen such attitude in the world which resulted in calling a previous product flawed once a newer version appreared on the market. Stu, with the advent of Windows did anyone refer to DOS as a flawed product? Now we have 3D TVs. Does that mean 2D TVs are flawed. We have 4K reolution. Does that mean HDTV is flawed? Does DOHC engine make an SOHC engine a flawed product? OK, one more: does digital make analog a flawed technology? Etc.

Anyone? smile.gif
post #69252 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post
 
Anything that while correcting one thing negatively impacts something else without necessity is flawed. Any room EQ is negatively impacting headroom - this is a necessity and can't be avoided so is not a flaw but a tradeoff. There is no necessity to impact HF correction in a negative way to increase low-frequency resolution of the correction. This is a flaw when something like this happens. Same as there is no necessity to boost low frequencies under F3 and/or normalization boost - this is also a flaw as it can be avoided while preserving quality of the correction. Same as connected crossover frequency setting and LPF of LFE in MCACC - a flaw as you cannot normally use it with less than 80Hz crossover setting - it is simply broken. Trying to "politely" call it "less capable" is fooling customers. I, as a customer want to know about problems in technology I am using, marketing that tells one part of the story and denying/hiding flaws is a kind of fraud. The difference between XT and XT32 is not only the resolution... And I want to be informed about that, not find it out by myself. They are important technical characteristics of the system, but instead seeing them in device specifications I see only a few cryptic capital letters.

 

I think your explanation of this is very lucid, Igor.

post #69253 of 70896
Isn't everything in AV basically flawed? I don't care if you measure things until the cows come home, a microphone and program are not your ears and brain so trying to figure out if something is flawed and the way we go about it is indeed flawed. Just a thought.

I was just looking for a way to use the cow analogy biggrin.gif
post #69254 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

Isn't everything in AV basically flawed? I don't care if you measure things until the cows come home, a microphone and program are not your ears and brain so trying to figure out if something is flawed and the way we go about it is indeed flawed. Just a thought.

I was just looking for a way to use the cow analogy biggrin.gif

+1. Holy cow, that is a good thought indeed comfy! smile.gif
post #69255 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

Isn't everything in AV basically flawed? I don't care if you measure things until the cows come home, a microphone and program are not your ears and brain so trying to figure out if something is flawed and the way we go about it is indeed flawed. Just a thought.

I was just looking for a way to use the cow analogy biggrin.gif

 

:) No - as Igor's post so brilliantly explains, something is flawed when correcting one thing negatively impacts something else, without necessity. I think that is a great definition.

 

This is not about calling an earlier product iteration 'flawed' because it has been superseded by a new product. Trying to switch the discussion to one of calling a previous product flawed once a newer version appeared on the market, is just a deflection, or red herring. XT would still be flawed even if XT32 hadn't been introduced at all.  

 

I agree that measurements are not the whole story. I think pretty much everyone agrees with that. But as Igor has shown and Rickard has shown and Sean Olive has shown (to name just three), measurements are always followed by listening. And in the examples under discussion, the listening tests have confirmed the measurements, as one would expect when the measurements are good.

 

I think that the considerable body of evidence presented really closes this discussion down. There is no doubt whatsoever how XT works in the correction of HF. And because, as Roger put it, "it has the potential to do more harm than good" it is flawed.

 

No amount of anyone attempting to redefine the definition of 'flawed' will change this. The Oxford English Dictionary is the de facto reference work for the meanings and usages of English words and it defines 'flawed' like this: "having or characterized by a fundamental weakness or imperfection".  The 'fundamental imperfection' in XT is the way that it goes about correction of the HF and the fact that that way can do more harm than good.


Edited by kbarnes701 - 1/23/14 at 4:54am
post #69256 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

smile.gif No - as Igor's post so brilliantly explains, something is flawed when correcting one thing negatively impacts something else, without necessity. I think that is a great definition.

This is not about calling an earlier product iteration 'flawed' because it has been superseded by a new product. XT would still be flawed even if XT32 hadn't been introduced at all.  

I agree that measurements are not the whole story. I think pretty much everyone agrees with that. But as Igor has shown and Rickard has shown and Sean Olive has shown (to name just three), measurements are always followed by listening. And in the examples under discussion, the listening tests have confirmed the measurements, as one would expect when the measurements are good.

I think that the considerable body of evidence presented really closes this discussion down. There is no doubt whatsoever how XT works in the correction of HF. And because, as Roger put it, "it has the potential to do more harm than good" it is flawed.

No amount of anyone attempting to redefine the definition of 'flawed' will change this. The Oxford English Dictionary is the de facto reference work for the meanings and usages of English words and it defines 'flawed' like this: "having or characterized by a fundamental weakness or imperfection".  The 'fundamental imperfection' in XT is the way that it goes about correction of the HF and the fact that that way can do more harm than good.



So if our other half points out a character flaw and we correct it, it leads to another flaw? biggrin.gif
Try selling that to your other half and see where it goes eek.gif
post #69257 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post
 

So if our other half points out a character flaw and we correct it, it leads to another flaw? biggrin.gif

 

Try selling that to your other half and see where it goes eek.gif

 

I know you are joking, and you know that that isn’t what I said :)

post #69258 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

smile.gif The 'fundamental imperfection' in XT is the way that it goes about correction of the HF and the fact that that way can do more harm than good.

Keith, for the sake of correctness and completeness will you be kind enough to add to the FAQ that Feri (mogorf) has made massive listening tests based on guidances of Igor Zep for what type of program material to listen to and has reported that his non-XT32 version of Audyssey RC did not show symptoms of flaw during correction of the HF region as discribed and referred to on the attached graphs. Later on FYR I can give you the serial number of my Denon AVR unit, as well.

Thank you. smile.gif
post #69259 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I know you are joking, and you know that that isn’t what I said smile.gif



Yes joking, but this could come in quite handy in my domestic life.
But but (insert my favorite name) if I move the speakers they won't measure so well and... you may stub your toe on them biggrin.gif
post #69260 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

smile.gif The 'fundamental imperfection' in XT is the way that it goes about correction of the HF and the fact that that way can do more harm than good.

Keith, for the sake of correctness and completeness will you be kind enough to add to the FAQ that Feri (mogorf) has made massive listening tests based on guidances of Igor Zep for what type of program material to listen to and has reported that his non-XT32 version of Audyssey RC did not show symptoms of flaw during correction of the HF region as discribed and referred to on the attached graphs. Later on FYR I can give you the serial number of my Denon AVR unit, as well.

Thank you. smile.gif

 

There's no need to. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

If anyone is wondering what the 'flaw' in XT is (see recent posts above), more information can be found here:


a)1. Are there any significant differences between MultEQ XT32 and MultEQ XT/MultEQ/2EQ?

Not many seem to be interested in mo info, and not many are wondering about a flaw whistel-blown by a single man's approach compiling/editing his lonely FAQ. Should be quite obvious, eh? smile.gif cool.gif tongue.gif wink.gif biggrin.gif

Next?
 
post #69261 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

There's no need to. 

Catch 22 for you, eh? smile.gif
post #69262 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I know you are joking, and you know that that isn’t what I said smile.gif



Yes joking, but this could come in quite handy in my domestic life.
But but (insert my favorite name) if I move the speakers they won't measure so well and... you may stub your toe on them biggrin.gif

 

In the 'What is the worst install mistake you have ever made?' thread, one guy posted that his biggest ever install mistake was installing a girlfriend in his couch :)

post #69263 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

In the 'What is the worst install mistake you have ever made?' thread, one guy posted that his biggest ever install mistake was installing a girlfriend in his couch smile.gif


Wow! I have to find that thread.
post #69264 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

There's no need to. 

Catch 22 for you, eh? smile.gif

 

Seriously, I think you'd have to post your preout measurements of your XT unit for consideration of including them in the FAQ Addendum, along with your subjective listening impressions. That's what the others have done. The Addendum, as the heading describes, is for "in depth technical discussion". Purely subjective listening tests don't fit with that description. However, I will add a comment that members should, after reading the objective evidence posted, listen to their own systems and make their own minds up as to whether they wish to move up to XT32.

 

Anyway, as you are clearly of the view that it's "quite obvious" nobody is interested in the FAQ Addendum, I'm not really sure why you care what it says TBH.

 

EDIT: added the second sentence below to the FAQ Addendum as mentioned above.

 

 

I was wondering whether to add the Sean Olive test results, as posted above, but for the time being I have decided not to and I think now that until/unless any additional evidence comes forward, this FAQ answer is complete.


Edited by kbarnes701 - 1/23/14 at 5:54am
post #69265 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

In the 'What is the worst install mistake you have ever made?' thread, one guy posted that his biggest ever install mistake was installing a girlfriend in his couch smile.gif


Wow! I have to find that thread.

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1415614/contest-tell-us-your-worst-install-mistake-ever-and-enter-to-win-an-epson-projector#post_22131456

post #69266 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


EDIT: added the second sentence below to the FAQ Addendum as mentioned above.



Now you are introducing "fundamentaly flawed". OMG. I think I'm gonna delete the link to the FAQ from my sig (within my authority, of course.).
post #69267 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


EDIT: added the second sentence below to the FAQ Addendum as mentioned above.


Now you are introducing "fundamentaly flawed". OMG. I think I'm gonna delete the link to the FAQ from my sig (within my authority, of course.).

 

Yes, please delete the link to the FAQ from your signature. I think that is a good suggestion.

 

Clearly you didn’t read the FAQ Amendment, as I suspected, or you would have known that the first sentence (including the phrase 'fundamentally flawed') was in the original text. As I say, and as you quote, above - it is just the second sentence that I added. 

post #69268 of 70896
I have a onkyo 818 and eveytime I run xt32 it sets my subwoofer like 10'feet away when it's only right behind my couch on the side .

Is there a reason and should I change it
post #69269 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holiday121 View Post

I have a onkyo 818 and eveytime I run xt32 it sets my subwoofer like 10'feet away when it's only right behind my couch on the side .

Is there a reason and should I change it

 

See if this FAQ answer helps:

 


f)1.    Why has Audyssey set my sub distance much greater than it actually measures?

post #69270 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

In the 'What is the worst install mistake you have ever made?' thread, one guy posted that his biggest ever install mistake was installing a girlfriend in his couch smile.gif
Well, that's certainly a new euphemism for 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)