any suggestions for cables? - Page 6 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #151 of 881 Old 12-15-2012, 01:27 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bfreedma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 9 iron from Philly
Posts: 1,859
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by esh516 View Post

Sooo..I went and bought a 8$ HDMI cable from general dollar..took out my audio quest..and omg!..the blacks were gray..the color was way off and the audio did not match up with the video!
Put my audioquest back in and it was like the moon going down and the sun coming up..you can not tell me all HDMI cables are identical!

Not a technically possible outcome.
bfreedma is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #152 of 881 Old 12-15-2012, 01:40 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gizmologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Maybe because the MAJORITY understand what a piece of wire can and cannot do.
Gizmologist is offline  
post #153 of 881 Old 12-15-2012, 03:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 2,610
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 856 Post(s)
Liked: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

Not a technically possible outcome.

Biologically possible, though.

Codename - the Larch theater
Nightlord is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #154 of 881 Old 12-15-2012, 05:49 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
ccotenj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: the toxic waste dumps of new jersey
Posts: 22,119
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 170 Post(s)
Liked: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by esh516 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

if you had a grasp of even the basic fundamentals of how tmds "works", you'd realize that it's not possible for a hdmi cable blow another one "right out ta the wata"...
unless one of them is not "working" at all...
fwiw... my system, while far from the most indulgent here at avs, is far from "inexpensive"...
carry on...
Sooo..I went and bought a 8$ HDMI cable from general dollar..took out my audio quest..and omg!..the blacks were gray..the color was way off and the audio did not match up with the video!
Put my audioquest back in and it was like the moon going down and the sun coming up..you can not tell me all HDMI cables are identical!

not possible... again, if you had a grasp of even the most basic fundamentals of the technology involved, you'd realize how silly you sound...

you can "believe" what you like... just don't expect your "beliefs" to gain any traction around these parts...

- chris

 

my build thread - updated 8-20-12 - new seating installed and projector isolation solution

 

https://www.avsforum.com/t/1332917/ccotenj-finally-gets-a-projector

ccotenj is offline  
post #155 of 881 Old 12-15-2012, 07:43 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,233
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7743 Post(s)
Liked: 7047
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by esh516 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

if you had a grasp of even the basic fundamentals of how tmds "works", you'd realize that it's not possible for a hdmi cable blow another one "right out ta the wata"...
unless one of them is not "working" at all...
fwiw... my system, while far from the most indulgent here at avs, is far from "inexpensive"...
carry on...
Sooo..I went and bought a 8$ HDMI cable from general dollar..took out my audio quest..and omg!..the blacks were gray..the color was way off and the audio did not match up with the video!
Put my audioquest back in and it was like the moon going down and the sun coming up..you can not tell me all HDMI cables are identical!

not possible... again, if you had a grasp of even the most basic fundamentals of the technology involved, you'd realize how silly you sound...

you can "believe" what you like... just don't expect your "beliefs" to gain any traction around these parts...

 

S'right. If the colours were 'way off' and the sound out of synch and the black levels changed dramatically, there's something wrong somewhere - even a crappy HDMI cable won't do all that - it would probably just fail to deliver anything. Unless, of course, the poster is BS-ing us?  Surely not??

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #156 of 881 Old 12-15-2012, 08:01 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
ccotenj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: the toxic waste dumps of new jersey
Posts: 22,119
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 170 Post(s)
Liked: 353
^^^

bs'ing??? on the internet??? say it ain't so, joe... tongue.gif

a hdmi cable can "do" one of 3 things... no more, no less...

- deliver everything... in which case, it can't be "improved"...

- be on the verge of delivering everything... this is not subtle, and is generally shown by "sparklies"...

- deliver nothing... i.e. a signal that is degraded to the point that it is unusable... this always results in "no image on the screen"... always... not a degraded image... not a washed out image... NO image...

a hdmi cable cannot do the following, regardless of beliefs, as it is simply impossible for it to do so... to do any of the following would require significant quantities of selective digital processing, not to mention somehow changing how tmds works (uncoupling the audio from the video, both from a data and clocking perspective)...

- change black levels...
- change/washout/etc. colors...
- change detail/clarity/sharpness...
- change audio timing...
- or anything else...

people may "believe" what they like... but those beliefs don't (and can't) change the reality of "how it really works"...

- chris

 

my build thread - updated 8-20-12 - new seating installed and projector isolation solution

 

https://www.avsforum.com/t/1332917/ccotenj-finally-gets-a-projector

ccotenj is offline  
post #157 of 881 Old 12-15-2012, 09:37 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,233
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7743 Post(s)
Liked: 7047
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

^^^

bs'ing??? on the internet??? say it ain't so, joe... tongue.gif

a hdmi cable can "do" one of 3 things... no more, no less...

- deliver everything... in which case, it can't be "improved"...

- be on the verge of delivering everything... this is not subtle, and is generally shown by "sparklies"...

- deliver nothing... i.e. a signal that is degraded to the point that it is unusable... this always results in "no image on the screen"... always... not a degraded image... not a washed out image... NO image...

a hdmi cable cannot do the following, regardless of beliefs, as it is simply impossible for it to do so... to do any of the following would require significant quantities of selective digital processing, not to mention somehow changing how tmds works (uncoupling the audio from the video, both from a data and clocking perspective)...

- change black levels...
- change/washout/etc. colors...
- change detail/clarity/sharpness...
- change audio timing...
- or anything else...

people may "believe" what they like... but those beliefs don't (and can't) change the reality of "how it really works"...

 

Hallelujah and Amen to that!  :)

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #158 of 881 Old 12-15-2012, 10:11 AM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,829
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

^^^
bs'ing??? on the internet??? say it ain't so, joe... tongue.gif
a hdmi cable can "do" one of 3 things... no more, no less...
- deliver everything... in which case, it can't be "improved"...
- be on the verge of delivering everything... this is not subtle, and is generally shown by "sparklies"...
- deliver nothing... i.e. a signal that is degraded to the point that it is unusable... this always results in "no image on the screen"... always... not a degraded image... not a washed out image... NO image...
a hdmi cable cannot do the following, regardless of beliefs, as it is simply impossible for it to do so... to do any of the following would require significant quantities of selective digital processing, not to mention somehow changing how tmds works (uncoupling the audio from the video, both from a data and clocking perspective)...
- change black levels...
- change/washout/etc. colors...
- change detail/clarity/sharpness...
- change audio timing...
- or anything else...
people may "believe" what they like... but those beliefs don't (and can't) change the reality of "how it really works"...
With respect to video this is correct. With respect to "change audio timing or anything else," it is not. I have explained this so many times on this forum yet that myth keeps getting repeated. Do you know what ACR is?
amirm is offline  
post #159 of 881 Old 12-15-2012, 10:37 AM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I have explained this so many times on this forum yet that myth keeps getting repeated.
Why do you explain so many times on audio forum about non-audible stuff?
Quote:
With respect to "change audio timing or anything else," it is not.
What is this "anything else"? Does it include audible difference? Remember, this is audio forum.
diomania is offline  
post #160 of 881 Old 12-15-2012, 10:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 9,171
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1087 Post(s)
Liked: 1003
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

With respect to video this is correct. With respect to "change audio timing or anything else," it is not. I have explained this so many times on this forum yet that myth keeps getting repeated. Do you know what ACR is?

If you are referring to cable induced jitter, it's going to take a hell of of a lot to visibly throw the audio out of sync. In fact it is impossible as that much jitter would break the link completely.

Or are you referring to something else?
Glimmie is offline  
post #161 of 881 Old 12-15-2012, 03:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,751
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 802 Post(s)
Liked: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Why do you explain so many times on audio forum about non-audible stuff?
....
How else would you expect the myth to continue? wink.gifbiggrin.gif
CharlesJ is online now  
post #162 of 881 Old 12-15-2012, 03:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,751
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 802 Post(s)
Liked: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by esh516 View Post

...p..you can not tell me all HDMI cables are identical!

No, of course not. Some are 3 ft long and costs $100s. Others are 12 ft long and costs only $20 something and still others cost an arm and a leg.
Oh, I forgot the jacket colors and the designer plugs are different and Monster will go after you if you dare come close to their designs;) biggrin.gif
CharlesJ is online now  
post #163 of 881 Old 12-16-2012, 11:54 AM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,829
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

That is true, but faith is a powerful thing (I am told it can move mountains, but have seen no independent corroboration). Once someone becomes a believer, it is very difficult to change their mind. No matter how much scientific evidence and proof you put before them, their faith generally prevails. Even the results of double blind tests won't convince them ("I know what I hear... the test is flawed.. all I need is my ears... there are audible differences that can't be measured" etc etc).
Faith is a powerful thing. So what you say is very true and the source of so many needless arguments on these forums. You seem to be implying that you or a group of you are immune to it and others not. It is trivial to demonstrate this is not the case. Just look at the couple of posters saying they have no use for science and just want know if it is “audible.” Well, how on earth do you know to trust the answer to the question if you don’t “really” know the science as Chris put it? The test could have been wrong and the only way to know that is to understand the audio science. I am glad at least you acknowledge the importance of knowing the science or else, this forum would have to take out the “S” from AVS! smile.gif

You were kind enough to go and read my company’s web site. I thought it would only be fair for me to go and read your Audyssey FAQ in your signature. I must say, that must be the most comprehensive FAQ I have ever read. True labor of love there. Unfortunately, there are some glaring and important mistakes with regards to how acoustics works in our listening rooms. I thought I hit on one of them and see your reaction to it. It will be a good test to see if stick to your beliefs, or accept the science and listening test results.

You say and I quote:
”Room reflections are caused by sound, mostly high frequencies, reflecting off adjacent walls and combining with the direct sounds you hear from the speakers. In most cases, you hear more reflected than direct sounds. The reflected sounds reach your ears milliseconds later than the direct sounds because they travel a longer distance. In general, sound reflections degrade imaging, sound staging and the overall tonal quality, important characteristics of a good sound system.
[..]
Poor dialogue intelligibility is often the result of reflections in your room. […] Pay especial attention to the 'first reflections' from your speakers - side walls, floor, ceiling.”


This myth is repeated so much on these forums that it has become “fact” even though it goes counter to countless research on how our hearing system works, and many listening tests. The belief is reinforced because it just makes sense to people. Folks think of how hard it is to hear others in an echo-prone room and imagine the same with respect to room (first) reflections. The belief is cemented, as you stated earlier, by looking at the pictures of mixing/mastering rooms which have walls covered in acoustic material.

Let’s walk through the proof of why your assumption is incorrect using your two metrics: Science and Listening tests.

Science:
Let’s deal with the notion of reflections being the same as echo. Research performed by Helmut Haas back in 1940s showed that we simply do not hear reflections as distinct “events.” To actually hear an “echo” requires that the reflection be stronger than the direct sound when delays are short. This doesn't happen with respect to reflections in our rooms because by definition they are weaker than the direct sound. What the brain hears is one event even though it is made up of a direct sound from your speaker and a number of reflections. As such, there is no analogy here at all to the echo you hear in a large space. Just go to your listening room and play something. Do you hear echo? I suspect not.

Even more interesting is that the brain puts the reflections to good use. As you can imagine, we have lived in enclosed spaces for years. Adaptation has allowed us to learn to use reflections to better understand the source signal. Remember, the reflections represent more energy. Sound coming out of your speaker bounces around the room. If you get rid of those reflections, you would be throwing out the speaker’s output in the form of heat generated in those absorbers. Energy lost means there is less for you to hear. Here is the Wiki on Haas effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_effect

”Haas found that humans localize sound sources in the direction of the first arriving sound despite the presence of a single reflection from a different direction. A single auditory event is perceived. A reflection arriving later than 1 ms after the direct sound increases the perceived level and spaciousness (more precisely the perceived width of the sound source). A single reflection arriving within 5 to 30 ms can be up to 10 dB louder than the direct sound without being perceived as a secondary auditory event (echo).

Sound travels around 1 foot per millisecond. So you can easily see that your normal room dimensions follow in the area I have bolded. Once more, this is research that is 70 years old. And it still stands without objection. Yet folks still ignore it. Net, net, when dealing with home listening spaces, you need to forget about the term “echo” (there is a thing called slap echo and that is a problem but it is not a factor in first reflections).

Haas also hits on another important aspect: that reflections can actually be a positive thing. In the case of side reflections, the apparent position of the speaker shifts toward the reflection point, resulting in perceiving a larger and more spacious sound field. This is important to have in the case of center speaker as without it, the dialog will seem to come from just the speaker which in a home theater with a projector, it will be smaller than the screen by far. The reflections on each side will stretch that sound to each side and better represent what is being played on screen.

Listening Tests:
The foundation of our understanding of reflections is through countless other listening tests conducted since Haas performed his landmark work. In the interest of brevity (yeh, right biggrin.gif), I will only cite a few. There is at least 10X more if you care to see them.

First up is Dr. Bradley of Canadian National Research Council (a non-profit acoustic research organization). Dr. Bradley has Phd from your neck of the woods (Imperial College at the University of London) with the specialty of “electroacoustic enhancement systems in rooms.” He and his counterparts (Sato and Picard) set up a simulation of room reflections using an array of speakers, each of which could be driven to act like a reflection in a real room and therefore their effects examined under controlled situation. Their goal was to determine the effect of room reflections on speech intelligibility – the very point you make in your FAQ. Here is the conclusion in their peer reviewed paper published in the journal of Acoustic Science of America (ASA):

”This paper presents the results of new studies based on speech intelligibility tests in simulated sound fields and analyses of impulse response measurements in rooms used for speech communication. The speech intelligibility test results confirm the importance of early reflections for achieving good conditions for speech in rooms. The addition of early reflections increased the effective signal-to-noise ratio and related speech intelligibility scores for both impaired and nonimpaired listeners. The new results also show that for common conditions where the direct sound is reduced, it is only possible to understand speech because of the presence of early reflections. Analyses of measured impulse responses in rooms intended for speech show that early reflections can increase the effective signal-to-noise ratio by up to 9 dB. A room acoustics computer model is used to demonstrate that the relative importance of early reflections can be influenced by the room acoustics design.”

Notice the bolded section. We gain up to 9 db of intelligibility by retaining early reflections than removing them. This of course makes sense in the context of theory I described in how energy is conserved if you let he reflections be, rather than thrown away by absorbing them. Just think of whether someone can hear you better 30 feet away in a big open field vs indoors. Likely you have to raise your voice for them to hear and understand you. Now you know why.

A much more extensive study was performed by Dr. Toole while at NRC and later at Harman, summarizing research in his own group and that of many others including Dr. Bradley above. I will spare you the details of this peer-reviewed paper in Journal of AES, but will give you the punch line summary table:

So there is no annoyance and improvements in critical areas including dialog intelligibility. As Haas had said, localization is not impacted. Again, if you listen to someone indoors, despite huge amount of reflections, you have no trouble telling which direction the sound comes from. And oh, your loved one's voices don't change as they move around the house! You still recognize them as being the voice you know.

Bringing us full circle to the topic of this thread, if someone asks to see blind tests showing no difference in cables and amps, folks usually quote Dave Clark and his tests of that type. What they don’t know is that he also examined this topic and published his work at Audio Engineering Society conference. You can read a much easier to digest version of his experiments in my Widescreen Review Magazine article (http://www.**************.com/Library/RoomReflections.html). Clark finds that acoustic distortions such as caused by reflections can actually be a positive thing. A mono sound for example played from two speakers, creating clear measurable distortion due to comb filtering, was actually preferred by listeners. The second speaker in this case is what a reflection would be from one speaker yet nothing but goodness came from it. Side reflection was positive as reported by other research (floor is not although even that is not what it seems). In my article, I show the psychoacoustics of why our measurements and gut feelings are incorrect based on psychoacoustics of our hearing system.

So what say you? Do you still believe what you believe?
Quote:
They have only themselves to blame but I still feel sorry for them because they are spending hard-earned money where it can make no difference, when they could be spending the same money and getting a terrific difference/improvement.
Yet when I try to engage you to talk about acoustics, you ignore that and instead prefer to waste time beating up on someone’s observation of cable differences. Between using the forum bandwidth on one topic vs the other, why do you prefer to do that?

And how about this line from your FAQ:

”The first thing to understand is that there are really no 'rights' or 'wrongs' as far as your home cinema goes. It is your equipment, paid for with your money and listened to with your ears.”

If you believe in leaving folks be there, why not here?
amirm is offline  
post #164 of 881 Old 12-16-2012, 01:07 PM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Faith is a powerful thing. So what you say is very true and the source of so many needless arguments on these forums.

.

As such, there is no analogy here at all to the echo you hear in a large space. Just go to your listening room and play something. Do you hear echo? I suspect not.
.


Listening Tests:

.

Yet when I try to engage you to talk about acoustics,

.

It is your equipment, paid for with your money and listened to with your ears.
All this is coming from the one who wrote this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by from amirm's website 
the conversation turns into “yes but… is it audible?” As unfair as it might be, I am going to punt that question.
rolleyes.gif
Quote:
Do you hear echo?
Perhaps kbarnes701 should punt that question.
diomania is offline  
post #165 of 881 Old 12-16-2012, 01:19 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,233
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7743 Post(s)
Liked: 7047
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

That is true, but faith is a powerful thing (I am told it can move mountains, but have seen no independent corroboration). Once someone becomes a believer, it is very difficult to change their mind. No matter how much scientific evidence and proof you put before them, their faith generally prevails. Even the results of double blind tests won't convince them ("I know what I hear... the test is flawed.. all I need is my ears... there are audible differences that can't be measured" etc etc).

Faith is a powerful thing. So what you say is very true and the source of so many needless arguments on these forums. You seem to be implying that you or a group of you are immune to it 

 

<snip>

 

And how about this line from your FAQ:

”The first thing to understand is that there are really no 'rights' or 'wrongs' as far as your home cinema goes. It is your equipment, paid for with your money and listened to with your ears.”

If you believe in leaving folks be there, why not here?

 

I have read all of your long post, all of the content of which is already known to me. I am not going to get into an endless debate with you so I will restrict my reply to a few general comments and then, AFAIC anyway, the discussion has ended. Readers can read your contribution, read mine and then make up their own mind or do further research.

 

I understand the Haas principles. I agree that any reflection which is within the Hass interval  cannot be perceived as a separate acoustic event. You draw the wrong conclusion from that. The event is still there even though it cannot be heard separately from the original direct signal. It is not perceived as an echo for obvious reasons but what it does do is contribute to a muddying of the sound.

 

When you discuss the research concerning reflections in speech rooms you omit the importance of the fact that they are speech rooms and not at all typical of home theatre listening rooms. In a speech room (eg a classroom) the reflections may well aid intelligibility and part of that is the boost of up to 9dB that you mention. However there is a vast difference between a room in which sound is originated and a room in which sound is reproduced. In the latter, reflections will serve to make dialogue more difficult to understand and this can easily be demonstrated in a HT by playing some dialogue with and without room treatments. Further, if we need a 9dB increase in SPL in our listening rooms, we simply raise the volume with the volume control!  We do not require the room to do the work of the amplifier. The foregoing does not pertain to a speech room, so while all that you quote is correct, it is also irrelevant. You are providing evidence that relates to one specific environment and trying to make it fit a totally different environment.

 

When you quote the part saying that reflections contribute to a sense of space in the room, you omit to stress that the research was done with a single speaker or a stereo pair. I agree that for stereo rooms some reflection may be a good thing. But I am discussing HT setups not stereo and in a HT setup we have 5 or 7 or 9 or even 11 speakers and any expansion of the soundstage is handled by the speakers themselves - there is no need for assistance from reflections and indeed it is specifically harmful for the reasons I have given.

 

I am also familiar with the Toole research and again you are selective with your quoting and again, Toole was discussing a mono speaker arrangement IIRC.

 

WRT to audible differences between different cables, there have been so many blind tests and they all come to the same conclusion - nobody can reliably hear any difference in sound. There is an especially amusing test where Ivor Tiefenbrun (founder of Scottish audiofile brand Linn) is totally debunked when his claims that he could hear various forms of 'digital distortion' are proven to be nonsense. Tiefenbrun actually resorted to a form of cheating in the end, so desperate was he to be proven right.  You can read about the test here:

 

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

 

You picked just one example of ABX testing - Dave Clark. But let's not stick to one such test - this page lists links to about 50 blind or double blind tests:

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

 

To prove that I too can do cut and paste, the conclusion drawn from all 50 or so tests is:

 

"The clear conclusion is that ABX testing does not back up many audiophile claims, so they become audiophile myths as they show cables do not inherantly change sound. Any change in sound quality comes from the listeners mind and interaction between their senses. What is claimed to be audible is not reliably so.
 
"If hifi is all about sound and more specifically sound quality, then we should, once the other senses have been removed be able to hear differences which can be verified by being able to identify one product from another by only listening. But time and agian we cannot."
 
50 tests all coming to the same conclusion is fairly convincing wouldn't you say?
 

WRT to your final quote from my Audyssey FAQ, it isn’t helpful to take one sentence out of a 50 page post! The Audyssey FAQ is aimed at novice users of Audyssey and its purpose is to condense into on place the wisdom contained in that 55000+ post thread as it is too long to search effectively. It is not meant to be a tract on acoustic theory and it has to be read for what it is - advice and help for novice users of Audyssey. I thank you for your kind remarks about the FAQ incidentally. For the record, the contextually correct quote from the FAQ is this:

 

 

a)4. Reference or Preference - which is best?
 
This is a topic which is always fiercely debated in the Official Audyssey Thread. The first thing to understand is that there are really no 'rights' or 'wrongs' as far as your home cinema goes. It is your equipment, paid for with your money and listened to with your ears. So if you prefer a little more bass after your Audyssey calibration, then turn up the bass trim in your AVR. And if you prefer a little less, then turn it down.
 
But before you do that, it is really important to understand the basic goal of the Audyssey technology:
 
Audyssey has been developed to solve room acoustics problems and the sound degradations they cause. The goal of Audyssey is not to shape the sound to your preference, but rather to shape the sound to Reference.
 
Your use of the quote ignores its context. I am discussing the difference between Reference and Preference in Audyssey-calibrated systems, not the alleged sonic differences between one cable and another!  Possibly a more relevant quote from the FAQ would have been one on 'audiofool' beliefs, such as this:
 
The form of 'biamping' in your AVR is often called 'audiophile biamping' or, less politely but possibly more accurately, 'fools' biamping'. With this method, all that happens is that full range signals are sent to the high and low legs of the speakers' own passive crossovers. In other words, the tweeter receives a full range signal from the preamp/power amp and the woofer also receives a full range signal. Which is exactly what happens if you use your AVR in its normal mode - the passive crossover inside the speaker in both cases splits the power to the appropriate driver. In other words, there is no scientifically sound reason at all why 'fools' biamping will make the slightest difference to your sound quality.
 

If you decide to reply to this post, please do so on the understanding that I may not read the reply and will definitely not respond to it. 

 

 

EDIT: I have amended the relevant part of the Audyssey FAQ to make it absolutely clear that the sentence quoted above by amirm (no rights and wrongs) was specifically discussing the context of the answer in which the sentence exists - that is, the discussion about Reference vs Preference.

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #166 of 881 Old 12-16-2012, 01:25 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,233
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7743 Post(s)
Liked: 7047
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by esh516 View Post

...p..you can not tell me all HDMI cables are identical!

No, of course not. Some are 3 ft long and costs $100s. Others are 12 ft long and costs only $20 something and still others cost an arm and a leg.
Oh, I forgot the jacket colors and the designer plugs are different and Monster will go after you if you dare come close to their designs;) biggrin.gif

 

LOL!  There is one circumstance where the cable can definitely be proven to have an influence on the sound quality. This is when the length of the cable is shorter than the distance between the two components it is intended to connect. This is known as the Arnyk Rule, after its discoverer :)

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #167 of 881 Old 12-17-2012, 04:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,751
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 802 Post(s)
Liked: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

LOL!  There is one circumstance where the cable can definitely be proven to have an influence on the sound quality. This is when the length of the cable is shorter than the distance between the two components it is intended to connect. This is known as the Arnyk Rule, after its discoverer smile.gif
Well, it is good to know of new discoveries are still happening as we speak or write. wink.gifbiggrin.gif
CharlesJ is online now  
post #168 of 881 Old 12-18-2012, 01:14 PM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,829
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I have read all of your long post, all of the content of which is already known to me. I am not going to get into an endless debate with you so I will restrict my reply to a few general comments and then, AFAIC anyway, the discussion has ended. Readers can read your contribution, read mine and then make up their own mind or do further research.
I didn’t know we were playing to the crowd! I was hoping to get you to correct the mistakes in your FAQ and base it on what the science and listening tests tell us, exactly as you said is your style of arguing. What I got back was the same response you said others give you: dismiss the listening tests as not applicable and staying with your views as if no evidence was put forward. You presented no listening tests to back your opposing stance nor quoted a single expert. Your platform was that of “I know better.” Well, if you do, it should have been trivial to come up with evidence to support it. Why don’t you contact Dr. Toole and see if he agrees with your read of his research? If you don’t know him, maybe you should trust someone who does wink.gifsmile.gif.

BTW, I was fascinated by your dabbling in what I call audio alchemy. Increasing the gain changes signal to noise ratio? Since when? When you turn up the volume on your AVR, both the dialog and the sound effects/noise in the track increase at the same level. If you had trouble understanding dialog among all the action before changing the volume, you will continue to have the same problem after increasing it. Even if this tactic worked, it would be a sign of poorly designed listening space. Keith Yates has a great line that refers to this: "anyone can build a loud television; the talent is having one perform that isn't!" When I demo our reference home theater, that is the point I make to people in how I can speak in normal voice over the movie ‘till the action comes. The dynamics have to be loud, but not the whole darn movie. Otherwise you will have fatigue and poor experience overall.

As to the rest of your points, you continue to confuse early reflections which you find with mirrors and such, with late reflections that occur as the sound continues to bounce around the room. It is the latter that can lead to issues of intelligibility as I noted. The first reflections from side walls as the research clearly indicates does not have such effect. Further, we use speech in research into role of reflections since a human speaking is a very close approximation of the directivity of a speaker. That is why the first section of Dr. Toole’s paper on room acoustics starts with speech, then it goes into other content including music. And yes, it also includes more than one speaker. So not sure where you got the idea that it is all about “mono.”
Quote:
WRT to your final quote from my Audyssey FAQ, it isn’t helpful to take one sentence out of a 50 page post! The Audyssey FAQ is aimed at novice users of Audyssey and its purpose is to condense into on place the wisdom contained in that 55000+ post thread as it is too long to search effectively. It is not meant to be a tract on acoustic theory and it has to be read for what it is - advice and help for novice users of Audyssey. I thank you for your kind remarks about the FAQ incidentally. For the record, the contextually correct quote from the FAQ is this:

a)4. Reference or Preference - which is best?

This is a topic which is always fiercely debated in the Official Audyssey Thread. The first thing to understand is that there are really no 'rights' or 'wrongs' as far as your home cinema goes. It is your equipment, paid for with your money and listened to with your ears. So if you prefer a little more bass after your Audyssey calibration, then turn up the bass trim in your AVR. And if you prefer a little less, then turn it down.

But before you do that, it is really important to understand the basic goal of the Audyssey technology:

Audyssey has been developed to solve room acoustics problems and the sound degradations they cause. The goal of Audyssey is not to shape the sound to your preference, but rather to shape the sound to Reference.
You are making matters worse, not better. The whole concept of “reference” you keep talking about in the FAQ is a marketing line and has no foundation whatsoever. What do you think the reference means? What people heard when they mixed the music or the movie soundtrack? If so, you have no idea what it sounded like there and at any rate, it is different with every piece of content. So unless you dabble in audio alchemy, as the saying goes, “there is no there there.” smile.gif

Now maybe you mean flat response? If so, as a person who knows Audyssey you should well know that it doesn’t do that (in its default curve). Here is what the graph looks like in its default state:

350x700px-LL-79f17c94_CE1.jpeg
What on earth is “reference” with respect to that curve in red? It sure isn’t flat. And it has that dip in the mid-range. Exactly what notion of reference says we should stick a dip in there at 2 KHz? You don’t think that came about from some mistaken understanding of how users prefer the sound in their room? You don’t think that could be one of the reasons people may not like the vocals/dialog post correction with Audyssey? It sure is when I use it.

And I am not alone. In the only published double blind tests of Audyssey, it did very poorly in mid-range (among other problems). Here are the measurements of each system with Audyssey at the bottom in cyan:

image?pagenumber=24&w=800

It took that B&W speaker which already had a directivity problem evidenced in the mid frequencies and made it worse with that “mid-range compensation.” No wonder Audyssey ranked worse than all the others, including doing nothing (dashed line). Its measured performance is full of variations. What school of acoustics says that is “reference?” Compare that to the top ranking systems and see how smooth they are. And how that completely correlated with the double blind listening tests.

The goal of any technology like this is to better our enjoyment of our content. If I turn this on and it doesn't make things better, the arrows point to it, not to my ears having some preference from its notions. Contrary to popular belief, our preferences are very close to each other. Not targeting that is half the reason your FAQ has to make allowances for users messing with the system post application of Audyssey. Now as a keeper of FAQ for it, I get that you should be a fan of it. But in this thread, and in this context, we should dispense with marketing lines and discuss the science as backed by listening tests. Or so I have been told by you biggrin.gif.
Quote:
If you decide to reply to this post, please do so on the understanding that I may not read the reply and will definitely not respond to it.
You are certainly welcome to make that choice. You have given us ample to talk about so far and for that, I am appreciative. My head is a bit down that I am alone in finding it more constructive to discuss acoustics and common myths around that, as opposed to the thousand's time we argue about cables. But by all means, demonstrate your priorities in how you choose to spend your time here....

Edit: fixed some typos smile.gif
amirm is offline  
post #169 of 881 Old 12-18-2012, 05:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
esh516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 604
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I didn’t know we were playing to the crowd! I was hoping to get you to correct the mistakes in your FAQ and base it on what the science and listening tests tell us, exactly as you said is your style of arguing. What I got back was the same response you said others give you: dismiss the listening tests as not applicable and staying with your views as if no evidence was put forward. You presented no listening tests to back your opposing stance nor quoted a single expert. Your platform was that of “I know better.” Well, if you do, it should have been trivial to come up with evidence to support it. Why don’t you contact Dr. Toole and see if he agrees with your read of his research? If you don’t know him, maybe you should trust someone who does wink.gifsmile.gif.
BTW, I was fascinated by your dabbling in what I call audio alchemy. Increasing the gain changes signal to noise ratio? Since when? When you turn up the volume on your AVR, both the dialog and the sound effects/noise in the track increase at the same level. If you had trouble understanding dialog among all the action before changing the volume, you will continue to have the same problem after increasing it. Even if this tactic worked, it would be a sign of poorly designed listening space. Keith Yates has a great line that refers to this: "anyone can build a loud television; the talent is having one perform that isn't!" When I demo our reference home theater, that is the point I make to people in how I can speak in normal voice over the movie ‘till the action comes. The dynamics have to be loud, but not the whole darn movie. Otherwise you will have fatigue and poor experience overall.
As to the rest of your points, you continue to confuse early reflections which you find with mirrors and such, with late reflections that occur as the sound continues to bounce around the room. It is the latter that can lead to issues of intelligibility as I noted. The first reflections from side walls as the research clearly indicates does not have such effect. Further, we use speech in research into role of reflections since a human speaking is a very close approximation of the directivity of a speaker. That is why the first section of Dr. Toole’s paper on room acoustics starts with speech, then it goes into other content including music. And yes, it also includes more than one speaker. So not sure where you got the idea that it is all about “mono.”
You are making matters worse, not better. The whole concept of “reference” you keep talking about in the FAQ is a marketing line and has no foundation whatsoever. What do you think the reference means? What people heard when they mixed the music or the movie soundtrack? If so, you have no idea what it sounded like there and at any rate, it is different with every piece of content. So unless you dabble in audio alchemy, as the saying goes, “there is no there there.” smile.gif
Now maybe you mean flat response? If so, as a person who knows Audyssey you should well know that it doesn’t do that (in its default curve). Here is what the graph looks like in its default state:
350x700px-LL-79f17c94_CE1.jpeg
What on earth is “reference” with respect to that curve in red? It sure isn’t flat. And it has that dip in the mid-range. Exactly what notion of reference says we should stick a dip in there at 2 KHz? You don’t think that came about from some mistaken understanding of how users prefer the sound in their room? You don’t think that could be one of the reasons people may not like the vocals/dialog post correction with Audyssey? It sure is when I use it.
And I am not alone. In the only published double blind tests of Audyssey, it did very poorly in mid-range (among other problems). Here are the measurements of each system with Audyssey at the bottom in cyan:
image?pagenumber=24&w=800
It took that B&W speaker which already had a directivity problem evidenced in the mid frequencies and made it worse with that “mid-range compensation.” No wonder Audyssey ranked worse than all the others, including doing nothing (dashed line). Its measured performance is full of variations. What school of acoustics says that is “reference?” Compare that to the top ranking systems and see how smooth they are. And how that completely correlated with the double blind listening tests.
The goal of any technology like this is to better our enjoyment of our content. If I turn this on and it doesn't make things better, the arrows point to it, not to my ears having some preference from its notions. Contrary to popular belief, our preferences are very close to each other. Not targeting that is half the reason your FAQ has to make allowances for users messing with the system post application of Audyssey. Now as a keeper of FAQ for it, I get that you should be a fan of it. But in this thread, and in this context, we should dispense with marketing lines and discuss the science as backed by listening tests. Or so I have been told by you biggrin.gif.
You are certainly welcome to make that choice. You have given us ample to talk about so far and for that, I am appreciative. My head is a bit down that I am alone in finding it more constructive to discuss acoustics and common myths around that, as opposed to the thousand's time we argue about cables. But by all means, demonstrate your priorities in how you choose to spend your time here....
Edit: fixed some typos smile.gif
Um....well this..sure has been some dang good read'n!..and I completely understand both sides of the discussion.. Gonna go make more popcorn...hold on..
esh516 is offline  
post #170 of 881 Old 12-18-2012, 08:12 PM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by esh516 View Post

Um....well this..sure has been some dang good read'n!..and I completely understand both sides of the discussion.. Gonna go make more popcorn...hold on..
It's been done here: https://www.avsforum.com/t/1413173/does-sound-sounds-better-in-a-room-full-of-furniture-and-stuff-or-without
The result, amirm got debunked. Sorry to spoil...
diomania is offline  
post #171 of 881 Old 12-19-2012, 12:49 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Nightlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern Sweden
Posts: 2,610
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 856 Post(s)
Liked: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

What on earth is “reference” with respect to that curve in red? It sure isn’t flat. And it has that dip in the mid-range. Exactly what notion of reference says we should stick a dip in there at 2 KHz?

Psychoacoustics. I'm not so certain it's as needed in a home theater setup as in 2-channel stereo, but it looks like it's approximately right placed, although perhaps a bit too deep. On the other hand, it's really something that should be done by the decoder (=speaker) itself, as it may be just the on-axis curve that needs the dip, not the entire radiation pattern. So while I may want to give Audyssey some points for trying, it's not full marks.

Codename - the Larch theater
Nightlord is offline  
post #172 of 881 Old 12-19-2012, 04:29 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,233
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7743 Post(s)
Liked: 7047
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I was hoping to get you to correct the mistakes in your FAQ 

 

Because someone disagrees with you does not mean they have made a mistake.

 

I didn't read beyond that sentence (but I did say I probably wouldn't).

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #173 of 881 Old 12-19-2012, 07:08 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JHAz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,587
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 307 Post(s)
Liked: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I didn’t know we were playing to the crowd! I was hoping to get you to correct the mistakes in your FAQ and base it on what the science and listening tests tell us, exactly as you said is your style of arguing. What I got back was the same response you said others give you: dismiss the listening tests as not applicable and staying with your views as if no evidence was put forward. You presented no listening tests to back your opposing stance nor quoted a single expert. Your platform was that of “I know better.” Well, if you do, it should have been trivial to come up with evidence to support it. Why don’t you contact Dr. Toole and see if he agrees with your read of his research? If you don’t know him, maybe you should trust someone who does wink.gifsmile.gif.
BTW, I was fascinated by your dabbling in what I call audio alchemy. Increasing the gain changes signal to noise ratio? Since when? When you turn up the volume on your AVR, both the dialog and the sound effects/noise in the track increase at the same level. If you had trouble understanding dialog among all the action before changing the volume, you will continue to have the same problem after increasing it. Even if this tactic worked, it would be a sign of poorly designed listening space. Keith Yates has a great line that refers to this: "anyone can build a loud television; the talent is having one perform that isn't!" When I demo our reference home theater, that is the point I make to people in how I can speak in normal voice over the movie ‘till the action comes. The dynamics have to be loud, but not the whole darn movie. Otherwise you will have fatigue and poor experience overall.
As to the rest of your points, you continue to confuse early reflections which you find with mirrors and such, with late reflections that occur as the sound continues to bounce around the room. It is the latter that can lead to issues of intelligibility as I noted. The first reflections from side walls as the research clearly indicates does not have such effect. Further, we use speech in research into role of reflections since a human speaking is a very close approximation of the directivity of a speaker. That is why the first section of Dr. Toole’s paper on room acoustics starts with speech, then it goes into other content including music. And yes, it also includes more than one speaker. So not sure where you got the idea that it is all about “mono.”
You are making matters worse, not better. The whole concept of “reference” you keep talking about in the FAQ is a marketing line and has no foundation whatsoever. What do you think the reference means? What people heard when they mixed the music or the movie soundtrack? If so, you have no idea what it sounded like there and at any rate, it is different with every piece of content. So unless you dabble in audio alchemy, as the saying goes, “there is no there there.” smile.gif
Now maybe you mean flat response? If so, as a person who knows Audyssey you should well know that it doesn’t do that (in its default curve). Here is what the graph looks like in its default state:
350x700px-LL-79f17c94_CE1.jpeg
What on earth is “reference” with respect to that curve in red? It sure isn’t flat. And it has that dip in the mid-range. Exactly what notion of reference says we should stick a dip in there at 2 KHz? You don’t think that came about from some mistaken understanding of how users prefer the sound in their room? You don’t think that could be one of the reasons people may not like the vocals/dialog post correction with Audyssey? It sure is when I use it.
And I am not alone. In the only published double blind tests of Audyssey, it did very poorly in mid-range (among other problems). Here are the measurements of each system with Audyssey at the bottom in cyan:
image?pagenumber=24&w=800
It took that B&W speaker which already had a directivity problem evidenced in the mid frequencies and made it worse with that “mid-range compensation.” No wonder Audyssey ranked worse than all the others, including doing nothing (dashed line). Its measured performance is full of variations. What school of acoustics says that is “reference?” Compare that to the top ranking systems and see how smooth they are. And how that completely correlated with the double blind listening tests.
The goal of any technology like this is to better our enjoyment of our content. If I turn this on and it doesn't make things better, the arrows point to it, not to my ears having some preference from its notions. Contrary to popular belief, our preferences are very close to each other. Not targeting that is half the reason your FAQ has to make allowances for users messing with the system post application of Audyssey. Now as a keeper of FAQ for it, I get that you should be a fan of it. But in this thread, and in this context, we should dispense with marketing lines and discuss the science as backed by listening tests. Or so I have been told by you biggrin.gif.
You are certainly welcome to make that choice. You have given us ample to talk about so far and for that, I am appreciative. My head is a bit down that I am alone in finding it more constructive to discuss acoustics and common myths around that, as opposed to the thousand's time we argue about cables. But by all means, demonstrate your priorities in how you choose to spend your time here....
Edit: fixed some typos smile.gif[/quote

As one would expect you to know, whlie music is mixed and mastered without standards, movies are mixed on stages that are ALL EQed to a non-flat FR (which AFAIK Audyssey does not really consider), and with specific and precise SPL calibration (-20 dBFS limited bandwidth pink noise yields 85 dB from each of the three front speakers and either 82 or 83 dB (I forget) from each of the surrounds, which are multiple on each side). So assuming, as at least used to be pretty universally true, that a movie's soundtrack is ported unchanged to a BluRay or DVD (save for whatever DD or Dts encoding may be involved) a person can know with precision the SPL of any moment in the movie as it was experienced by the mixer and aproved by directors, producers and other meddlers. It's really that reference SPL level that Audyssey is focused on, and it is not imaginary. They actually, truly calibrate those multimillion dollar mixing stages routinely and always to exatly the same SPL and EQ.

I am slightly amazed that you can hang out on these boards and not have caught one of the probably dozens of discussions of Audyssey's implementation of the BBC dip in its correction routine. It's a choice they made based on their own research, essentially in accord with the BBC's research that led to a similar dip in, say, the LS3/5a. It's a choice I personally disagree with. I'd prefer to be able to turn it off, at least experimentally. But I can't, and am happy enough with the overall results of using Audyssey in my system that I'm willing to live with it and the nagging doubts . . . but my willingness to live with it may be affected by the fact that I seem to prefer, at least on first blush, speakers with a much broader presence range dip, like my former Sonus Fabers. It's a sound that appeals to me. I can say with reasonable certainty that at least the narrower Audyssey dip doesn't take the punch out of massed horns like my SFs did. What I know for sure is that just like Coke isn't sending me their formula any time soon, Audyssey isn't sending me the results of their listening tests that resulted in the "movie" curve (which lies between flat and the X Curve that is used on mixing stages) or that supports their conclusion that a fixed BBC dip is universally preferable to no such dip. So I can understand generally how they went about reaching their conclusions, and use that info to help me implement their system, if I choose to use it, but I cannot "fully" either vett it or demonstrate it's inadequacy onacounta I ain't got the data.
JHAz is offline  
post #174 of 881 Old 12-19-2012, 08:47 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,233
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7743 Post(s)
Liked: 7047
Quote:

Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

 

As one would expect you to know, whlie music is mixed and mastered without standards, movies are mixed on stages that are ALL EQed to a non-flat FR (which AFAIK Audyssey does not really consider), and with specific and precise SPL calibration (-20 dBFS limited bandwidth pink noise yields 85 dB from each of the three front speakers and either 82 or 83 dB (I forget) from each of the surrounds, which are multiple on each side). So assuming, as at least used to be pretty universally true, that a movie's soundtrack is ported unchanged to a BluRay or DVD (save for whatever DD or Dts encoding may be involved) a person can know with precision the SPL of any moment in the movie as it was experienced by the mixer and aproved by directors, producers and other meddlers. It's really that reference SPL level that Audyssey is focused on, and it is not imaginary. They actually, truly calibrate those multimillion dollar mixing stages routinely and always to exatly the same SPL and EQ.

 

I am slightly amazed that you can hang out on these boards and not have caught one of the probably dozens of discussions of Audyssey's implementation of the BBC dip in its correction routine. It's a choice they made based on their own research, essentially in accord with the BBC's research that led to a similar dip in, say, the LS3/5a. It's a choice I personally disagree with. I'd prefer to be able to turn it off, at least experimentally. But I can't, and am happy enough with the overall results of using Audyssey in my system that I'm willing to live with it and the nagging doubts . . . but my willingness to live with it may be affected by the fact that I seem to prefer, at least on first blush, speakers with a much broader presence range dip, like my former Sonus Fabers. It's a sound that appeals to me. I can say with reasonable certainty that at least the narrower Audyssey dip doesn't take the punch out of massed horns like my SFs did. What I know for sure is that just like Coke isn't sending me their formula any time soon, Audyssey isn't sending me the results of their listening tests that resulted in the "movie" curve (which lies between flat and the X Curve that is used on mixing stages) or that supports their conclusion that a fixed BBC dip is universally preferable to no such dip. So I can understand generally how they went about reaching their conclusions, and use that info to help me implement their system, if I choose to use it, but I cannot "fully" either vett it or demonstrate it's inadequacy onacounta I ain't got the data.

 

For me at least, this basic lack of understanding which you reference says all I need to know.  As I said, I didn't read the post and now that decision seems to have been fully vindicated.

 

EDIT: Your reply piqued my interest and I went back to read some of the post.

 

"The whole concept of “reference” you keep talking about in the FAQ is a marketing line and has no foundation whatsoever. What do you think the reference means? What people heard when they mixed the music or the movie soundtrack? If so, you have no idea what it sounded like there and at any rate, it is different with every piece of content."

 

LOL! That has to be a perfect 100% bullseye for getting something entirely and totally wrong!  Wow!  What a staggering own-goal! Well at least the stupifying level of ignorance demonstrated there means that I now know for sure I can safely ignore any future posts from that source.

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #175 of 881 Old 12-19-2012, 08:57 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 27,233
Mentioned: 127 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7743 Post(s)
Liked: 7047
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post


I am slightly amazed that you can hang out on these boards and not have caught one of the probably dozens of discussions of Audyssey's implementation of the BBC dip in its correction routine. It's a choice they made based on their own research, essentially in accord with the BBC's research that led to a similar dip in, say, the LS3/5a. It's a choice I personally disagree with. I'd prefer to be able to turn it off, at least experimentally. But I can't, and am happy enough with the overall results of using Audyssey in my system that I'm willing to live with it and the nagging doubts . . . but my willingness to live with it may be affected by the fact that I seem to prefer, at least on first blush, speakers with a much broader presence range dip, like my former Sonus Fabers. It's a sound that appeals to me. I can say with reasonable certainty that at least the narrower Audyssey dip doesn't take the punch out of massed horns like my SFs did. What I know for sure is that just like Coke isn't sending me their formula any time soon, Audyssey isn't sending me the results of their listening tests that resulted in the "movie" curve (which lies between flat and the X Curve that is used on mixing stages) or that supports their conclusion that a fixed BBC dip is universally preferable to no such dip. So I can understand generally how they went about reaching their conclusions, and use that info to help me implement their system, if I choose to use it, but I cannot "fully" either vett it or demonstrate it's inadequacy onacounta I ain't got the data.

 

As you probably know, you can remove the BBC dip (aka Mid range compensation in Audyssey-speak) if you have the Audyssey Pro Kit. FWIW, the overwhelming majority of those who have tried removing the dip and who have posted their findings in the Official Audyssey Thread or the Pro Kit Installer Thread prefer the result with the dip left in place. 

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #176 of 881 Old 12-19-2012, 10:07 AM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I now know for sure I can safely ignore any future posts from that source.
Especially because what he posts is often just a repeat of same marketing in disguise he memorized. https://www.avsforum.com/t/1436318/class-d-integrated-amplifier-shootout-2012#post_22541170
diomania is offline  
post #177 of 881 Old 12-19-2012, 01:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JHAz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,587
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 307 Post(s)
Liked: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

As you probably know, you can remove the BBC dip (aka Mid range compensation in Audyssey-speak) if you have the Audyssey Pro Kit. FWIW, the overwhelming majority of those who have tried removing the dip and who have posted their findings in the Official Audyssey Thread or the Pro Kit Installer Thread prefer the result with the dip left in place. 
I'm too cheap! Or at least I'd rather spend the extra money on another guitar, keyboard or (right now I'm jonesing for) amp
JHAz is offline  
post #178 of 881 Old 12-19-2012, 01:42 PM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,829
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

As one would expect you to know, whlie music is mixed and mastered without standards, movies are mixed on stages that are ALL EQed to a non-flat FR (which AFAIK Audyssey does not really consider), and with specific and precise SPL calibration (-20 dBFS limited bandwidth pink noise yields 85 dB from each of the three front speakers and either 82 or 83 dB (I forget) from each of the surrounds, which are multiple on each side). So assuming, as at least used to be pretty universally true, that a movie's soundtrack is ported unchanged to a BluRay or DVD (save for whatever DD or Dts encoding may be involved) a person can know with precision the SPL of any moment in the movie as it was experienced by the mixer and aproved by directors, producers and other meddlers. It's really that reference SPL level that Audyssey is focused on, and it is not imaginary. They actually, truly calibrate those multimillion dollar mixing stages routinely and always to exatly the same SPL and EQ.
Same level? What does that have to do with anything? I said that you have no idea what it sounded like there.” I didn’t say they have different levels. Level matching does nothing to produce the same sound or else, we could level match our speakers and have them all sound the same! In the study I showed, levels were matched as it should have been, yet the different systems sounded very different with Audyssey underperforming doing nothing. So clearly having levels the same does nothing to tell us how these systems sound.

As to “multimillion dollar mixing stages” calibrating to the same EQ, you have some data to back that? I trust not because it simply is not the case. If it were, and Audyssey matches the same curve, are you saying that your room with it sounds the same as those mixing stages? And that they could do away with their manual or other solutions they used and just install Audyssey? How many installations of Audyssey do you know in that space? I assume none.

I am a data driven guy and don’t go by folklore on the web. On that front, here is a survey that Genelec did on a 160 control rooms that all used their speakers . If you don’t know Genelec, they are one of a handful of top speakers installed in such rooms. This is what they found as they reported in their AES paper as far as variations between 250 speakers:

i-9ZbrrbF.png

The faint flat gray line that tilts down at 2 KHz is the “reference” they are supposed to follow. The pink lines above and below are the worst case deviations. We see that it is a free for all below 2 Khz (the tick after 10^3). We are talking about a worst case difference of 30 dB! And this is all with the same speaker brand, calibrated to the same curve at the factory!!! So whatever dreams you have that these rooms all sounding the same is just that: a dream.

Let’s not fantasize about pros being able to achieve 0 dB deviation from a curve. Clearly they deviate either on purpose or otherwise to get the sound they want. And that sound will not match what you hear at home with random set of speakers and room than what they have.
Quote:
I am slightly amazed that you can hang out on these boards and not have caught one of the probably dozens of discussions of Audyssey's implementation of the BBC dip in its correction routine. It's a choice they made based on their own research, essentially in accord with the BBC's research that led to a similar dip in, say, the LS3/5a.
You don't need to be amazed because this excuse and justification is posted all the time when this topic comes up. Here is you talking about it in front of me just a couple of months back: https://www.avsforum.com/t/1425262/are-audio-companies-all-involved-in-a-huge-conspiracy/1080#post_22527402. And no, this was not research from BBC saying all speakers should have a dip in them. You can read the history on it here including a very nice post from Sean Olive who by the way, is the guy who conducted the blind test we are talking about here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=75195

If the sketchy history is to be believed, this is the motivation for the so called dip: ” According to Harbeth's founder, who worked at the BBC during the time that this psychoacoustic effect was being explored, the primary benefit this little dip gave was in masking of defects in the early plastic cone drive units available in the 1960's.

Before I address this further, please remember that I brought up the dip to address Keith's point that Audyssey sticks to a concept of "reference." Where in the reference graph in the Genelec study do you see such a dip? Do you think Genelec and other speaker manufacturers design their speakers such that an EQ is needed with this dip to make them sound right? What percentage of speakers do you think have Audyssey behind them? Would you as a speaker designer create a correct response or make it exaggerated so that Audyssey would correct it? You see where I am going?

Clearly Audyssey experimented a bit with this in their lab before dialing it in. The fact that they found it pleasing to their non-trained ears, is why we have a mistake like this in probably a million pieces of home electronics.

As shown, even pros violate the so called flat response and let their systems have room gain at low frequencies. This is essential as otherwise, the system does not sound “correct.” Audyssey dials this out, invalidating a decade or more research that says room gain at low frequencies needs to be left alone as likely it was there when the recording was made. We can confirm this in our blind listening test now sorted based on frequency band:

image?pagenumber=18&w=800

Again, RC6 is Audyssey in dark yellow/orange this time. Either we are trying to please our ears or not. If we are trying to do that, how on earth would we defend a system that over and undershoots this way? Here is a report card on defects it introduces:

image?pagenumber=19&w=800

Do you honestly think those expensive mixing stages had response that garnered all of those sad faces for Audyssey?
Quote:
It's a choice I personally disagree with. I'd prefer to be able to turn it off, at least experimentally. But I can't, and am happy enough with the overall results of using Audyssey in my system that I'm willing to live with it and the nagging doubts . . . but my willingness to live with it may be affected by the fact that I seem to prefer, at least on first blush, speakers with a much broader presence range dip, like my former Sonus Fabers. It's a sound that appeals to me. I can say with reasonable certainty that at least the narrower Audyssey dip doesn't take the punch out of massed horns like my SFs did. What I know for sure is that just like Coke isn't sending me their formula any time soon, Audyssey isn't sending me the results of their listening tests that resulted in the "movie" curve (which lies between flat and the X Curve that is used on mixing stages) or that supports their conclusion that a fixed BBC dip is universally preferable to no such dip. So I can understand generally how they went about reaching their conclusions, and use that info to help me implement their system, if I choose to use it, but I cannot "fully" either vett it or demonstrate it's inadequacy onacounta I ain't got the data.
Well, I do have the data smile.gif. I have read their two AES papers on the design of this system. I trust you have not. Here is a meta observation: it almost completely ignores any of the issues we have been talking about. It assumes the goal is to get to flat response (sans the high frequency roll off) and therefore this is a mathematical problem to solve. Contrast that with Harman publishing the research on their EQ in the blind test I mentioned. All they talk about is whether the performance of the system can be proven and why, based on measurements and prior research. The mathematics of filtering and shaping the response at the end of the day is boring everyday stuff. What matter is if you have a more clever widget: knowing what effects of the room are good to preserve, what it is you need to get rid of. There is science that guides us there. When we ignore it, then we get all those sad faces.

Now I appreciate the subjective feedback from you all that you like your Audyssey systems. That’s OK. I am not here to argue against that. I am here to say that when it comes to objectively looking at audio, we turn into subjectivists all of a sudden, rely on folklore learned on forums, sighted tests, and like Keith, we put our fingers in our ear claiming we are so right that it is beneath us to have a conversation about it. Really? What if someone dismissed your double blind tests as being any good and that is that? What a bad example we set when we play it this way. Please step back and see how we lose the right to complain and whine about the other group once we in such an obvious way avoid research, data and listening test results. Look at how your response and that of Keith continue to be absent of any research references, measurements and listening test data. And in an area where we collectively agree is more important than any other. Yet opinion posts seem to be the defense being put forward.

Edit: made it clear which graph was which in the blind test.
amirm is offline  
post #179 of 881 Old 12-19-2012, 02:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
esh516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 604
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Same level? What does that have to do with anything? I said that you have no idea what it sounded like there.” I didn’t say they have different levels. Level matching does nothing to produce the same sound or else, we could level match our speakers and have them all sound the same! In the study I showed, levels were matched as it should have been, yet the different systems sounded very different with Audyssey underperforming doing nothing. So clearly having levels the same does nothing to tell us how these systems sound.
As to “multimillion dollar mixing stages” calibrating to the same EQ, you have some data to back that? I trust not because it simply is not the case. If it were, and Audyssey matches the same curve, are you saying that your room with it sounds the same as those mixing stages? And that they could do away with their manual or other solutions they used and just install Audyssey? How many installations of Audyssey do you know in that space? I assume none.
I am a data driven guy and don’t go by folklore on the web. On that front, here is a survey that Genelec did on a 160 control rooms that all used their speakers . If you don’t know Genelec, they are one of a handful of top speakers installed in such rooms. This is what they found as they reported in their AES paper as far as variations between 250 speakers:
i-9ZbrrbF.png
The faint flat gray line that tilts down at 2 KHz is the “reference” they are supposed to follow. The pink lines above and below are the worst case deviations. We see that it is a free for all below 2 Khz (the tick after 10^3). We are talking about a worst case difference of 30 dB! And this is all with the same speaker brand, calibrated to the same curve at the factory!!! So whatever dreams you have that these rooms all sounding the same is just that: a dream.
Let’s not fantasize about pros being able to achieve 0 dB deviation from a curve. Clearly they deviate either on purpose or otherwise to get the sound they want. And that sound will not match what you hear at home with random set of speakers and room than what they have.
You don't need to be amazed because this excuse and justification is posted all the time when this topic comes up. Here is you talking about it in front of me just a couple of months back: https://www.avsforum.com/t/1425262/are-audio-companies-all-involved-in-a-huge-conspiracy/1080#post_22527402. And no, this was not research from BBC saying all speakers should have a dip in them. You can read the history on it here including a very nice post from Sean Olive who by the way, is the guy who conducted the blind test we are talking about here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=75195
If the sketchy history is to be believed, this is the motivation for the so called dip: ” According to Harbeth's founder, who worked at the BBC during the time that this psychoacoustic effect was being explored, the primary benefit this little dip gave was in masking of defects in the early plastic cone drive units available in the 1960's.
Before I address this further, please remember that I brought up the dip to address Keith's point that Audyssey sticks to a concept of "reference." Where in the reference graph in the Genelec study do you see such a dip? Do you think Genelec and other speaker manufacturers design their speakers such that an EQ is needed with this dip to make them sound right? What percentage of speakers do you think have Audyssey behind them? Would you as a speaker designer create a correct response or make it exaggerated so that Audyssey would correct it? You see where I am going?
Clearly Audyssey experimented a bit with this in their lab before dialing it in. The fact that they found it pleasing to their non-trained ears, is why we have a mistake like this in probably a million pieces of home electronics.
As shown, even pros violate the so called flat response and let their systems have room gain at low frequencies. This is essential as otherwise, the system does not sound “correct.” Audyssey dials this out, invalidating a decade or more research that says room gain at low frequencies needs to be left alone as likely it was there when the recording was made. We can confirm this in our blind listening test now sorted based on frequency band:
image?pagenumber=18&w=800
Again, RC6 is Audyssey in dark yellow/orange this time. Either we are trying to please our ears or not. If we are trying to do that, how on earth would we defend a system that over and undershoots this way? Here is a report card on defects it introduces:
image?pagenumber=19&w=800
Do you honestly think those expensive mixing stages had response that garnered all of those sad faces for Audyssey?
Well, I do have the data smile.gif. I have read their two AES papers on the design of this system. I trust you have not. Here is a meta observation: it almost completely ignores any of the issues we have been talking about. It assumes the goal is to get to flat response (sans the high frequency roll off) and therefore this is a mathematical problem to solve. Contrast that with Harman publishing the research on their EQ in the blind test I mentioned. All they talk about is whether the performance of the system can be proven and why, based on measurements and prior research. The mathematics of filtering and shaping the response at the end of the day is boring everyday stuff. What matter is if you have a more clever widget: knowing what effects of the room are good to preserve, what it is you need to get rid of. There is science that guides us there. When we ignore it, then we get all those sad faces.
Now I appreciate the subjective feedback from you all that you like your Audyssey systems. That’s OK. I am not here to argue against that. I am here to say that when it comes to objectively looking at audio, we turn into subjectivists all of a sudden, rely on folklore learned on forums, sighted tests, and like Keith, we put our fingers in our ear claiming we are so right that it is beneath us to have a conversation about it. Really? What if someone dismissed your double blind tests as being any good and that is that? What a bad example we set when we play it this way. Please step back and see how we lose the right to complain and whine about the other group once we in such an obvious way avoid research, data and listening test results. Look at how your response and that of Keith continue to be absent of any research references, measurements and listening test data. And in an area where we collectively agree is more important than any other. Yet opinion posts seem to be the defense being put forward.
Edit: made it clear which graph was which in the blind test.
Dang..I need yet another bag of popcorn!..this is very interesting, I'm trying to decide by this weekend ,what pre-amp to buy..one has arc (anthem)..one has audessey(marantz)..so this is good reading from you two..you both are obviously very educated in the science of it all..but still it all comes down to what our ears like and sometimes that's not really correct!
esh516 is offline  
post #180 of 881 Old 12-19-2012, 03:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JHAz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,587
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 307 Post(s)
Liked: 280
Lord, I'm never gonna read all that. Suffice to say, to the extent you have a disconnect with what Audyssey tries to do, either you're overthinking it or bias prevents you seeing it. I'm not one who ever suggested Audyssey does even what it tries to do perfectly, and AFAIK, Audyssey never said it was perfect in itself.

I think you misapprehend the point of using reference level in connection with Audyssey. I suspect that mixing stages identically calibrated are far more alike than different, but I don't know how eal spaces can be made sonically identical. FWIW, I recall some back and forth between posters here and CTO of Audyssey in which the posters wanted the data under the summaries that appeared in Audyssey's papers and were rebuffed. If my memory fails me, well, that hapens some times.

You were banging on and on about reference, and the term "reference level" has an actual meaning, and if you use it with the actual meaning you can discuss it meaningfully. FWIW, I was able to discover a fair amount about how movie mixing stages are calibrated, what the standards are, etc. with a half hour of googling a couple years ago. If I kept any of the citations, I lost them in a hard disk crash because it's not critical stuff that I backed up. Google for yourself or continue to appear ignorant. No difference to me. If you prefer to pour a personal definition into the term like so many novices do around here, then conversation is of course impossible (although clearly it can get very very long).

I would never expect a home theater to sound like a mixing stage simply because the way smaller rooms work sonically is too different from the way big rooms work sonically.

If you want "proof" Todd-ao and others actually calibrate their mixing stages, search for FilmMixer. He mixes at one of those stages and comments not infrequently on calibration, and the fact that it recurs even without equipment changes. The notion that they would not follow their own industry standards, which you seem to assume, strikes me as absurd. As you ignored in my relatively simple post, Audyssey does NOT follow the X curve. The X curve that movie mixing stages are calibrated to rolls off the highs more than Audyssey. Audyssey hits roughly in the middle between that curve and flat, but not because it's in between (at least not as they explain it). It's just what their research came up with. But what the heck does Tomlinson Holman know about sound, anyway? Feel free to take 45 seconds to google X curve if you want to see the actual rolloff.

I really really don't want to get into attempting to decide which of two for-profit companies' published studies I want to trust the most. I like what Harman does. Had wonderful 12 inch and a horn JBL PA speakers for a long time before donating them to my church. Truly a fine sound, especially for their intended purpose. I'm also satisfied with what Audyssey does for me.

Reference level is a real thing. You seemed not to grok that, I simply attempted to describe it.

The midrange compensation is a simple thing, much discussed before, and I was frankly surprised you were not aware of where it came from. Agree or not with Audyssey's implementation the concept is not exactly rocket surgery.

And FWIW, it looks to me like Harman, the Canadians, and yes even Audyssey (albeit from a different direction) seem to be converging around a preferred in-room sound that calls for some (of course precise amounts differ) high frequency roll off in direct radiation and for speakers, a smooth high frequency roll off as you go off axis horizontally. Not what I would have expected . . .
JHAz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat

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