"Official" Audyssey thread Part II - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 43980Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 6779 Old 03-24-2016, 04:39 PM
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 16,231
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4588 Post(s)
Liked: 4791
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
Hi,

I haven't heard anything about that. The new thread came about because people were tired of posting/editing issues with the very long original thread. Part II was literally born in an instant.

But I would love to know more about impending Audyssey releases if you hear anything else.

Regards,
Mike
Feri was the one who drew the comment a week or so ago...."LOL Feri. After all these years you still keep trying to ask me about future developments. I can say that we are working on something very cool for 2016 release. It will make hard core Audyssey fans happy. And, no, we are not leaving the room correction business."
lovinthehd is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 6779 Old 03-24-2016, 04:56 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mogorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 5,772
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1229 Post(s)
Liked: 933
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
I am also glad (and Feri will be even gladder ) to hear that you are enjoying DEQ. Feri is DEQ's unofficial, or perhaps official, champion. And it can make movies sound pretty exciting.
Official or unofficial champion Mike, but I do really think DEQ for me works as advertised. In my room with my system and my 116 year old ears (58 each, ) it gives me the pleasure I expect from a loudness compensation feature whenever MV is lower than 0 dB ref. I'm not as sensitive to movie soundtracks as I am to music recordings. In the music department I do enjoy the restoration of tonal balance once I turn down the MV, even sometimes to -50 dB when friends are over and music is being played in the background.

Moreover, despite the many complaints of surround boost by other respected members, I do enjoy the envelopment of sounds in a full 5.1 system giving me a true 2D experience. A friend of mine who heard my setup for the first time immediately said its much better than his HTIB where he practically hears nothing from the surrounds.

And finally the most innovative part of DEQ to me is the second level of compensation when it looks into the passage and at any given MV that is lower than reference it does another loudness compensation based on soft or loud parts as the program material advances and its done "on the fly". How about that?
pepar, mthomas47 and lovinthehd like this.
mogorf is online now  
post #33 of 6779 Old 03-24-2016, 05:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mogorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 5,772
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1229 Post(s)
Liked: 933
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post
Feri was the one who drew the comment a week or so ago...."LOL Feri. After all these years you still keep trying to ask me about future developments. I can say that we are working on something very cool for 2016 release. It will make hard core Audyssey fans happy. And, no, we are not leaving the room correction business."
Here's an update from FB:

Ferenc Mógor Hi Chris, any news on Audyssey releasing some very cool "stuff" in 2016 even for hard core fans? Just a hint on the tentative release date would be fine! March 17 at 10:12pm · Like · 1




Chris Kyriakakis Q3-Q4
mthomas47 likes this.
mogorf is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 6779 Old 03-24-2016, 05:10 PM
AVS ***** Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,139
Mentioned: 324 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5381 Post(s)
Liked: 10065
Page 2 already! Just 2653 more before Part III.

GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES

* The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement.
mthomas47 is online now  
post #35 of 6779 Old 03-24-2016, 05:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
jevansoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southern, Ohio
Posts: 795
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked: 120
I really think this is a great idea that was long overdue to implement.

Does anyone know of any other threads that have been so long there has been a "Part II" created?

Just curious.

Thanks,

--J

Last edited by jevansoh; 03-24-2016 at 05:17 PM.
jevansoh is offline  
post #36 of 6779 Old 03-24-2016, 05:25 PM
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 16,231
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4588 Post(s)
Liked: 4791
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
Here's an update from FB:

Ferenc Mógor Hi Chris, any news on Audyssey releasing some very cool "stuff" in 2016 even for hard core fans? Just a hint on the tentative release date would be fine! March 17 at 10:12pm · Like · 1




Chris Kyriakakis Q3-Q4
Yeah, should have included that. I'm interested in the form factor....avr or separate data manipulation like others are doing since the avr mfrs don't want to provide sufficient MIPS power?
lovinthehd is offline  
post #37 of 6779 Old 03-24-2016, 06:14 PM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,907
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1460 Post(s)
Liked: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

And finally the most innovative part of DEQ to me is the second level of compensation when it looks into the passage and at any given MV that is lower than reference it does another loudness compensation based on soft or loud parts as the program material advances and its done "on the fly". How about that?
OMG, it's like it is ... dynamic.

Jeff
(w/132 yr old ears)

"The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed." W. Gibson

"I like the future, I'm in it." F. Theater

Last edited by pepar; 03-24-2016 at 06:18 PM.
pepar is offline  
post #38 of 6779 Old 03-24-2016, 08:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
D Bone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SoCal, USA
Posts: 1,683
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 326 Post(s)
Liked: 447
I also saw where Chris said something like "It will be the year of preference" which to me, sounds like possibly being able to adjust the frequency boost and surround boost independently in DEQ.......... and maybe if we're really lucky, they will implement a max frequency EQ setting.

That would be like Christmas, and I would probably buy another AVR because of those features.
D Bone is offline  
post #39 of 6779 Old 03-24-2016, 08:27 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Defcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,916
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1549 Post(s)
Liked: 859
Well I still don't understand why DV on makes everything louder even when the input is at constant volume with no volume shifts. Also I've now tried with a variety of content, simple dialog only scenes, music, movies, and the difference between DV Light and Off is ~10-15dB at least.

I verified this with a SPL meter, picked something which is not varying more than 2-4dB in level for a while, like a long speech or a song. With DEQ off the volume drops by at least 10dB if not more. Its clearly not just reducing highs and lows.

Doesn't sound right to me. Sorry to keep bringing this up, I'm just trying to understand what's going on.
Defcon is offline  
post #40 of 6779 Old 03-24-2016, 08:33 PM
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 16,231
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4588 Post(s)
Liked: 4791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defcon View Post
Well I still don't understand why DV on makes everything louder even when the input is at constant volume with no volume shifts. Also I've now tried with a variety of content, simple dialog only scenes, music, movies, and the difference between DV Light and Off is ~10-15dB at least.

I verified this with a SPL meter, picked something which is not varying more than 2-4dB in level for a while, like a long speech or a song. With DEQ off the volume drops by at least 10dB if not more. Its clearly not just reducing highs and lows.

Doesn't sound right to me. Sorry to keep bringing this up, I'm just trying to understand what's going on.
Are you familiar with the term loudness wars? Use of compression for the sake of loudness? All the compression routines allow you to do is supposedly get the whole thing in a thinner sandwich so to speak, it just starts at a bit higher level so just turn the volume knob down if you're going to use that feature...
lovinthehd is offline  
post #41 of 6779 Old 03-24-2016, 08:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Defcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,916
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1549 Post(s)
Liked: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post
Are you familiar with the term loudness wars? Use of compression for the sake of loudness? All the compression routines allow you to do is supposedly get the whole thing in a thinner sandwich so to speak, it just starts at a bit higher level so just turn the volume knob down if you're going to use that feature...


According to this diagram from Audyssey, if there are no spikes (e.g. at the right) then the output level should be same with DV since there's no compression. But it isn't. Its 10dB louder.
Defcon is offline  
post #42 of 6779 Old 03-24-2016, 09:18 PM
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 16,231
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4588 Post(s)
Liked: 4791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defcon View Post

According to this diagram from Audyssey, if there are no spikes (e.g. at the right) then the output level should be same with DV since there's no compression. But it isn't. Its 10dB louder.
I don't necessarily see that diagram that way, what does the graph represent particularly? Is it dynamic range?
lovinthehd is offline  
post #43 of 6779 Old 03-24-2016, 10:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Defcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,916
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1549 Post(s)
Liked: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post
I don't necessarily see that diagram that way, what does the graph represent particularly? Is it dynamic range?
Yes. Graph is from here - http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/dynamic-volume
Defcon is offline  
post #44 of 6779 Old 03-25-2016, 12:00 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
gurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,141
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 289 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by CherylJosie View Post
Neither am I, in some cases. Some of the choices made by Audyssey seem to be quite arbitrary to me.

One other thing you should be aware of is that both Audyssey Dynamic EQ and THX Loudness Plus functions are loudness compensation algorithms that are primarily designed to compensate the tonal balance for changes in listening level, but they also change one other thing too.

Both algorithms boost the surround levels a little when enabled, although the boost in surround level with Audyssey Dynamic EQ is quite noticeable whereas the boost in surround level with THX Loudness Plus seems to be so mild as to be unnoticeable to me (or not implemented to spec in my receiver). THX Loudness Plus compensation also seems to add much less bass and treble boost too, equivalent to about -10dB on the 'reference level offset' menu for DEQ, or equivalent to about -10dB on the 'Intellivolume' input level offset adjustment for DEQ.

Most probable explanation for doing this surround level boost in the loudness compensation algorithm is that customers complained that the surround channels that contain mainly ambiance at low level are inaudible at low volume control settings. So brilliant solution is to turn them up when enabling the loudness compensation that is typically used when listening at low levels.

The end result of the too bright room EQ target, the loudness boost at frequency extremes, and the overly boosted surround channels with DEQ is that the music/effects in the surround channels, and the subwoofer boom in the LFE channel, still swamp the dialog despite your best efforts to use DV to compensate for the buried dialog.

If you habitually use DEQ it can help to cut the surround channel levels by about -1dB if you tend to listen at higher volume, or about -2dB if you tend to listen at lower volume.

If you habitually use THX Loudness Plus you probably do not need to adjust the surround levels at all, but then you also have to use THX sound modes too and that means that the sound mode adds 'decorrelation' phase modification to enhance the perceived separation between channels. Decorrelation makes the sound phasy to my ears and I consider it undesirable so I never use THX sound modes. If your receiver is not THX rated (most budget receivers are not) it probably lacks any THX functions.
The "mild" boost on surround speakers is based on current research, because those speakers should be placed either side at least 90° or more, where the human hearing is less sensitive and the sound character changes somewhat to allow us to differentiate between sounds arriving from the front or back in real life. The boost compensates dynamically for this difference with decreasing levels. The individual difference in perception is coming from differences in individual hearing and a change in speaker placement and mounting positions compared to the standard. If the surround speakers are placed close (near field) to the listener in direct radiating mode this can be somewhat annoying and could be avoided by establishing a more diffuse soundfield to avoid any acoustical hot spots.
Most of these systems are based on some sort of an averaged "acoustical model" of the setup and environment your system is based upon.
If your own installation deviates to much from this "model" you either have to compensate manually for the differences or modify your installation correspondingly.

Last edited by gurkey; 03-25-2016 at 02:19 AM.
gurkey is offline  
post #45 of 6779 Old 03-25-2016, 07:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CherylJosie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,504
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 798 Post(s)
Liked: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurkey View Post
The "mild" boost on surround speakers is based on current research, because those speakers should be placed either side at least 90° or more, where the human hearing is less sensitive and the sound character changes somewhat to allow us to differentiate between sounds arriving from the front or back in real life. The boost compensates dynamically for this difference with decreasing levels. The individual difference in perception is coming from differences in individual hearing and a change in speaker placement and mounting positions compared to the standard. If the surround speakers are placed close (near field) to the listener in direct radiating mode this can be somewhat annoying and could be avoided by establishing a more diffuse soundfield to avoid any acoustical hot spots.
Most of these systems are based on some sort of an averaged "acoustical model" of the setup and environment your system is based upon.
If your own installation deviates to much from this "model" you either have to compensate manually for the differences or modify your installation correspondingly.
Unfortunately, regardless of the psychoacoustics involved, this boost is a frequent source of complaint among Audyssey users.

Whatever its intention, it did not enhance realism for me. All it did is make the dialog harder to hear at lower levels.
D Bone and IgorZep like this.
CherylJosie is offline  
post #46 of 6779 Old 03-25-2016, 08:50 AM
AVS ***** Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,139
Mentioned: 324 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5381 Post(s)
Liked: 10065
I don't want to create any controversy here. People are perfectly free to either like or dislike the surround boost as they choose. But I wrote something about the surround boost back in January (page 2626 of the old thread) that I think might be worth repeating in this context.

"I wanted to write a somewhat lengthy post on DEQ, based in part on the excellent dialogue with Chris that Feri posted yesterday. The issue that they were discussing was the original intent of the surround boost in DEQ, and how it was implemented. The conventional wisdom on this thread has been that the surround boost was, at least in part, based on a misconception regarding sound falling-off faster from behind us than it does from in front of us. But, I think that the issues with the surround boost go deeper than that. With apologies to all, I think that the concept of the surround boost, as a part of DEQ, had some logical flaws from the very beginning. And the fact that so many people notice that their surrounds are boosted, with respect to their front speakers, is an inevitable result of those flaws.

Before I discuss what I am calling flaws in the concept, however, I want to make something very clear to anyone reading this who is less familiar with Audyssey. Audyssey the room EQ system (in whatever generation of version: including 2EQ, MultiEQ, XT, or XT-32) is a very effective automated room correction system, which simply attempts to reduce distortion caused by the interaction between speakers and room. Additional Audyssey features, such as the Reference Curve (with MRC), Flat, DEQ, and Dynamic Volume, are features which are at least somewhat distinct (particularly the last two) from the room correction software. They are user preference features, much like the built-in apps on a smart phone. So, nothing that I am saying about the surround boost in DEQ should be taken as criticism of the basic EQ software. Audyssey is capable of doing an outstanding job of EQing a room. It is only in implementing the user preference features that go on top of the EQ, that people may generally find fault with one or another of the apps.

According to Chris, as stated on many occasions, the original reason that Audyssey included a surround boost with DEQ is because sounds arriving from the rear fall-off faster than sounds arriving from the front. In the discussion Feri quoted, Chris explained that Audyssey's research indicated that the pinnae of the ear (the visible part attached to the head) partially block sounds above about 1000Hz from reaching the ear. I have several problems with this conclusion. Among them is the absence of other research confirming this. As a practical matter, I also think of all the species of dogs with large flaps completely covering their ears who hear very well into ultrasonic frequencies. If higher pitched sounds are less audible from behind (due to our pinnae) than lower pitched sounds, then the higher the sound, the greater the attenuation, and that just doesn't seem to be borne out by practical experience, or by other research. But, let that go for a moment. Let's assume for a moment, that the intent of the surround boost was valid. In that case, I have several problems with the fundamental concept of how it was to be implemented.

First. If the problem is the pinnae of our ears partly blocking sounds arriving from the rear, what does that have to do with sounds from the rear falling away faster than sounds from the front? That question was pointed out several years ago, and it still seems like a valid question to me. Somewhere in there, a conceptual leap was made between the idea of the pinnae blocking high frequency sounds, to sound from the rear falling away faster, and there is nothing whatsoever to justify that conceptual leap. To me, that is an inherent flaw in the concept that affected the subsequent implementation.

Second. If the problem is either rear arriving sounds falling away faster in the higher frequencies, or simply being attenuated to start with in the higher frequencies, what does that have to do with surround speakers which are typically located more or less out to the sides? What application would a surround boost have in a typical 5.1 system, which at the time the technology was introduced, included the vast majority of systems? Only where rear speakers are employed would the pinnae of the ears be a significant factor in blocking higher frequencies in the typical system. But the surround boost was, at the time, primarily for speakers out to the sides.

Third. If the pinnae in our ears really do block higher frequencies, why wouldn't it simply be better to boost the surrounds from the outset? Even at Reference levels, high frequency sounds arriving from the rear would be perceptually lower than front, or side arriving sounds, if the theory were correct. So, we would always need to have our rear (not side) surrounds boosted in order to hear high frequencies comparably. There is that pesky conceptual leap again from pinnae blocking high frequencies from the rear, to rear arriving sounds decline faster than front arriving sounds. That conceptual leap led them down a bad path, in my opinion.

Fourth. Let's say that none of the other logical flaws existed. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that we really do want to amplify higher frequencies arriving from both the side (where the pinnae don't block them) and from the rear where they might. Even so, there was still a flaw, in my opinion, in tying that desired frequency boost to DEQ. And that's because the stated purpose of DEQ is to maintain equilibrium in the full frequency range, at below Reference volumes. So, a high frequency boost, and a low frequency boost are applied, while the mid-range is left unaffected, on the assumption that our hearing is most sensitive in the mid-range, and that as volume goes down, we need to amplify high and low frequencies to maintain an acoustical balance with the mid-range. And yet, it was the mid-range where Audyssey said their research showed that we started to need a boost--at about 1000Hz. So, doing both a high and low frequency boost, while leaving the mid-range unaffected, wouldn't actually solve the problem they posited. Attaching the surround boost onto the more valid DEQ application was always a kludge.

In some respects, this might have been the biggest logical flaw of all, because the most notable feature of DEQ is the bass boost. So, boosting the surrounds globally, at the same time that you are boosting the bass (DEQ's treble boost is much less perceptible) simply calls even more attention to the surrounds, when the original intent was only to restore some balance in the higher frequencies, so that those higher frequencies arriving from the rear would balance with those arriving from the front. But what we actually hear from back there is much lower frequency sound than that, since the surround boost is implemented in conjunction with DEQ, which most noticeably boosts bass. And for many people, that merely draws unwanted attention to the surrounds. So, they didn't really solve the problem they set out to solve. They just called more attention to the surrounds.

If I seem unduly hard on Audyssey in this post, I don't mean it that way. But bad assumptions have a way of accumulating, and I think they started this process of a surround boost with good intentions, but flawed logic. Of course, there are workarounds, so we can have our cake and eat it too. For people who are using DEQ for everything, if the surround boost bothers you, you can easily reduce your surround trims to a comfortable level (typically about 3db). It's a little more problematical if you are using DEQ more randomly, although I have never really minded adjusting trim levels when necessary. Or, of course, you can leave DEQ off, and explore other ways to achieve more bass at lower than Reference volumes. But I wanted to get some thoughts about the surround boost down on paper, since the issue comes up so often."
mogorf and IgorZep like this.

GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES

* The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement.
mthomas47 is online now  
post #47 of 6779 Old 03-25-2016, 10:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
gurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,141
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 289 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Looking at the ITU positioning diagrams in this document https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb/rep/R-REP-BS.2159-4-2012-PDF-E.pdf dated 05/2012, surround speakers in their terminology are placed >= 90° to the main axis not before the listener. This excludes "wide" speakers.
Using DynamicEQ in my own installations does not show any disturbances concerning the loudness of the surround speakers and works like intended at least for me, thus there must be some differences in the individual installations which excites this abnormality.
I do use a combination of direct and indirect surround sound because my MLP is at the rear wall and speakers are excactly at 90° due to this.
mogorf likes this.

Last edited by gurkey; 03-25-2016 at 10:54 AM.
gurkey is offline  
post #48 of 6779 Old 03-25-2016, 11:38 AM
AVS ***** Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,139
Mentioned: 324 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5381 Post(s)
Liked: 10065
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurkey View Post
Looking at the ITU positioning diagrams in this document https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb/rep/R-REP-BS.2159-4-2012-PDF-E.pdf dated 05/2012, surround speakers in their terminology are placed >= 90° to the main axis not before the listener. This excludes "wide" speakers.
Using DynamicEQ in my own installations does not show any disturbances concerning the loudness of the surround speakers and works like intended at least for me, thus there must be some differences in the individual installations which excites this abnormality.
I do use a combination of direct and indirect surround sound because my MLP is at the rear wall and speakers are excactly at 90° due to this.

I have always found it difficult to generalize about this sort of thing, precisely because our individual listening experiences and preferences can be so different. People whose opinions I respect are bothered by the surround boost, and people whose opinions I respect are not. So, who knows?

In my own case, I didn't find the surround boost so troubling with a 5.1 system as I did with a 7.1 system. With a 7.1 system, 4 of my speakers were boosted relative to my front soundstage, and that seemed a little more noticeable to me. The other problem I had was that some movies, and many TV shows, already have a surround boost baked into the soundtrack. That multiplied the effect for me.

But I am certainly not campaigning against the surround boost, particularly because many people seem to enjoy it, and that alone is good enough for me. I just wanted to point out some issues that had been discussed regarding the origin of the surround boost.

Regards,
Mike
mogorf and garygarrison like this.

GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES

* The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement.
mthomas47 is online now  
post #49 of 6779 Old 03-26-2016, 06:20 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,907
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1460 Post(s)
Liked: 891
Trying to fool our 3D chess brains with a checkers level trick seems fraught with potential unintended consequences. If it is all true about our hearing changes vis-a-vis the arrival vector, perhaps that is one of the subtle cues we use to process our environment? Perhaps by trying to game our brains with artificial cues we are introducing confusion? Of course, since the hearing changes themselves are so subtle and subconscious, the confusion added is also subconscious. Subconscious confusion can be disconcerting.

YMMV

"The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed." W. Gibson

"I like the future, I'm in it." F. Theater
pepar is offline  
post #50 of 6779 Old 03-26-2016, 08:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
D Bone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SoCal, USA
Posts: 1,683
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 326 Post(s)
Liked: 447
To me, DEQ is like a couple of teenagers sitting behind me at the movies talking. They make the dialog harder to hear because of their annoying presence.
IgorZep and garygarrison like this.
D Bone is offline  
post #51 of 6779 Old 03-26-2016, 09:03 AM
AVS ***** Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,139
Mentioned: 324 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5381 Post(s)
Liked: 10065
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
Trying to fool our 3D chess brains with a checkers level trick seems fraught with potential unintended consequences. If it is all true about our hearing changes vis-a-vis the arrival vector, perhaps that is one of the subtle cues we use to process our environment? Perhaps by trying to game our brains with artificial cues we are introducing confusion? Of course, since the hearing changes themselves are so subtle and subconscious, the confusion added is also subconscious. Subconscious confusion can be disconcerting.

YMMV

Terrific! I thought we were all having enough trouble with conscious audio confusion. Now you have to go and throw subconscious confusion into the pot.
garygarrison likes this.

GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES

* The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement.
mthomas47 is online now  
post #52 of 6779 Old 03-26-2016, 02:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Defcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,916
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1549 Post(s)
Liked: 859
Sadly I have to somewhat reverse my position on DEQ. I'd earlier stated I really liked it, I've now watched a lot more content and realize it can be really intrusive many times. I have my surround speakers placed much closer than mains and Audyssey has correctly set their trim down. With DEQ enabled on a lot of content I hear them play louder than mains, e.g when there's background music, which totally destroys the experience and distracts you. It does seem to enhance the bass but the artificial boost could be called muddy in some cases. Its especially noticeable on tv shows. I also tried playing with the offset value but it seems very drastic, it cuts everything off or nothing.

It's very easy to get used to a louder/more active soundfield and think its better than a more accurate one, its all down to personal preference. It can sound nice for the most part until you find something that's very jarring and then you have to turn it off.

In short I'd prefer DEQ to be a little less bossy and find a happy medium. It should have a Light/Medium/Heavy setting like DV.
IgorZep and garygarrison like this.
Defcon is offline  
post #53 of 6779 Old 03-26-2016, 02:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
D Bone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SoCal, USA
Posts: 1,683
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 326 Post(s)
Liked: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defcon View Post
Sadly I have to somewhat reverse my position on DEQ. I'd earlier stated I really liked it, I've now watched a lot more content and realize it can be really intrusive many times. I have my surround speakers placed much closer than mains and Audyssey has correctly set their trim down. With DEQ enabled on a lot of content I hear them play louder than mains, e.g when there's background music, which totally destroys the experience and distracts you. It does seem to enhance the bass but the artificial boost could be called muddy in some cases. Its especially noticeable on tv shows. I also tried playing with the offset value but it seems very drastic, it cuts everything off or nothing.

It's very easy to get used to a louder/more active soundfield and think its better than a more accurate one, its all down to personal preference. It can sound nice for the most part until you find something that's very jarring and then you have to turn it off.

In short I'd prefer DEQ to be a little less bossy and find a happy medium. It should have a Light/Medium/Heavy setting like DV.
If it helps, you can think of DEQ's settings as:

0db = Max
5db = High
10db = Medium
15db = Low
D Bone is offline  
post #54 of 6779 Old 03-26-2016, 02:24 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mogorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 5,772
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1229 Post(s)
Liked: 933
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
According to Chris, as stated on many occasions, the original reason that Audyssey included a surround boost with DEQ is because sounds arriving from the rear fall-off faster than sounds arriving from the front. In the discussion Feri quoted, Chris explained that Audyssey's research indicated that the pinnae of the ear (the visible part attached to the head) partially block sounds above about 1000Hz from reaching the ear. I have several problems with this conclusion. Among them is the absence of other research confirming this.
Mike et al, I just started a discussion with Chris K. on the "DEQ boosts surround" issue, so here's where we are at right now.

Me: Chris, a long time recurring issue I'd like to raise here is the so-called surround boost of DynEQ. Long story short, some people never complain, but like it, while other people always complain that they find it troubling. Some even think the surround boost was based on a misconception of sounds falling-off faster from behind us than it does from in front of us. Care to add some convincing thougths to this debate? Thx as always.

Chris: It wasn't based on a misconception... I think that problems arise when listening to content that is not mixed at reference. I find that a lot with TV content, for example.
For those that want to dig really deep, here is a PhD Thesis on the topic of directional loudness. If you skip to the manuscripts later in the thesis, you can see the measured large differences in loudness between front and back http://vbn.aau.dk/files/61782646/VPS_PhD_thesis.pdf

---

The PhD Thesis from Denmark researchers looks pretty interesting, though it needs some digestion. Hope this will help us understand what is behind this "phenomenon" called "directional loudness perception" and how we can find a way to tackle it on our HT systems with DEQ engaged. Let's see! Happy reading!
gurkey, mthomas47 and garygarrison like this.

Last edited by mogorf; 03-26-2016 at 02:28 PM.
mogorf is online now  
post #55 of 6779 Old 03-26-2016, 02:51 PM
AVS ***** Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,139
Mentioned: 324 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5381 Post(s)
Liked: 10065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defcon View Post
Sadly I have to somewhat reverse my position on DEQ. I'd earlier stated I really liked it, I've now watched a lot more content and realize it can be really intrusive many times. I have my surround speakers placed much closer than mains and Audyssey has correctly set their trim down. With DEQ enabled on a lot of content I hear them play louder than mains, e.g when there's background music, which totally destroys the experience and distracts you. It does seem to enhance the bass but the artificial boost could be called muddy in some cases. Its especially noticeable on tv shows. I also tried playing with the offset value but it seems very drastic, it cuts everything off or nothing.

It's very easy to get used to a louder/more active soundfield and think its better than a more accurate one, its all down to personal preference. It can sound nice for the most part until you find something that's very jarring and then you have to turn it off.

In short I'd prefer DEQ to be a little less bossy and find a happy medium. It should have a Light/Medium/Heavy setting like DV.

Hi,

DBone's advice to try an RLO of 5 or 10 might help. Some of us have found a workaround, or alternative to DEQ, that works well for us. I like the bass boost that DEQ provides for action movies, but in my case, I did eventually decide that I was sacrificing a little clarity in exchange for more impactful bass in general, and LFE in particular at below Reference volumes (typically about -15 give or take for movies; a little softer for TV).

I had always added a sub boost anyway post-calibration, irrespective of DEQ. But based on the experiences of Alan and Gary G., who post here regularly, I tried adding substantially more sub boost and left DEQ off. In my particular case, that has given me the bass I want for everything such as Battle Los Angeles, WOTW, Edge of Tomorrow, etc. But I believe that I not only get a little more clarity in the process, but slightly smoother transitions in and out of the sudden loud passages.

I used DEQ for action movies and comparable TV shows (although never for music) off and on for at least a couple of years. Once the surround boost really started to bother me, and it's hard to unring that bell, I started to investigate other alternatives. Simply boosting my subs by about 5 or 6db more than I had been with DEQ proved to be a very workable solution for me. YMMV!

Regards,
Mike
mogorf, garygarrison and Matt2026 like this.

GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES

* The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement.
mthomas47 is online now  
post #56 of 6779 Old 03-26-2016, 02:53 PM
AVS ***** Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,139
Mentioned: 324 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5381 Post(s)
Liked: 10065
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
The PhD Thesis from Denmark researchers looks pretty interesting, though it needs some digestion. Hope this will help us understand what is behind this "phenomenon" called "directional loudness perception" and how we can find a way to tackle it on our HT systems with DEQ engaged. Let's see! Happy reading!

Thank, Feri! I will read this with interest.
mogorf and garygarrison like this.

GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES

* The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement.
mthomas47 is online now  
post #57 of 6779 Old 03-26-2016, 03:07 PM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,907
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1460 Post(s)
Liked: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by D Bone View Post

If it helps, you can think of DEQ's settings as:

0db = Max
5db = High
10db = Medium
15db = Low
... and Off.
D Bone likes this.
pepar is offline  
post #58 of 6779 Old 03-26-2016, 03:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
garygarrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 1,274
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 854 Post(s)
Liked: 1187
Has this been discussed before?

Some AVR manufacturers use "Music" to designate Audyssey Flat. Audyssey Reference, with its treble roll-off and midrange compensation is called "Movies." Why would it be thought that flat is more appropriate for music, and treble roll-off more appropriate for movies? In my case, both movies and music are played back in the same room, with the same equipment. The rationale Audyssey seems to use for Audyssey Reference is that it optimizes movie sound for HT size rooms, rather than the larger venues of commercial cinemas (or even large control rooms). Are they assuming that our Blu-ray discs are authored with the same frequency characteristics as movie soundtracks sent to theaters?

I find Audyssey Flat ("Music") to be better sounding for both music and movies made in the last decade, or so. As I've said before, I have found Audyssey reference to be handy for movies that are more than about a decade old, which have some high frequency distortion that Audyssey Reference filters out.
garygarrison is offline  
post #59 of 6779 Old 03-26-2016, 04:14 PM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,907
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1460 Post(s)
Liked: 891
My (just replaced) Onk 5508 had no adjustments for movie or music, and was not to my liking for movies or music ... until I applied my house curve with the Pro kit.
mthomas47, mogorf and garygarrison like this.
pepar is offline  
post #60 of 6779 Old 03-26-2016, 04:17 PM
AVS ***** Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,139
Mentioned: 324 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5381 Post(s)
Liked: 10065
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post
Has this been discussed before?

Some AVR manufacturers use "Music" to designate Audyssey Flat. Audyssey Reference, with its treble roll-off and midrange compensation is called "Movies." Why would it be thought that flat is more appropriate for music, and treble roll-off more appropriate for movies? In my case, both movies and music are played back in the same room, with the same equipment. The rationale Audyssey seems to use for Audyssey Reference is that it optimizes movie sound for HT size rooms, rather than the larger venues of commercial cinemas (or even large control rooms). Are they assuming that our Blu-ray discs are authored with the same frequency characteristics as movie soundtracks sent to theaters?

I find Audyssey Flat ("Music") to be better sounding for both music and movies made in the last decade, or so. As I've said before, I have found Audyssey reference to be handy for movies that are more than about a decade old, which have some high frequency distortion that Audyssey Reference filters out.

Hi Gary,

I am not sure exactly what the rationale behind the nomenclature was (and I believe it was the AVR maker who used the Music/Movies name), but the subject of house curves has certainly been discussed, on other threads as well. I am in the same boat you are. I have always preferred Flat for everything, and I particularly prefer my music straight--no ice, no mixers.

If I were to attempt a rationale behind someone else's names for the two curves, it might be the one in my last sentence. The assumption may have been that people would be more tolerant of a house curve for movies than for music. Perhaps someone assumed that movies would also have more dynamic range than typical (not necessarily full orchestral) music. I don't know that either assumption really makes a whole lot of sense, but one or both of those would still be my best guess.

Regards,
Mike
garygarrison likes this.

GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES

* The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement.
mthomas47 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off