AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
15021 - 15040 of 79637 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey /forum/post/16594585


This isn't normal. The only time that would happen is if you, for example, changed the speaker configuration to Center = None accidentally. Then MultEQ is reset even if you set it back to Small. Is that possible?

I did change speaker configuration for the center from large to small but not to none. I have no idea why Audyssey would set my center to large even though the LCR are all the same make/model and the fl/fr are set to small. I find the audyssey setup is a tad weak on the bass side which is why I wanted to change the speaker sizes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,141 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey /forum/post/16594585


This isn't normal. The only time that would happen is if you, for example, changed the speaker configuration to Center = None accidentally. Then MultEQ is reset even if you set it back to Small. Is that possible?

Chris,


At least in my Denon 3808, I can turn a speaker off and retain Audyssey settings, as long as that channel was on when Audyssey was initially run. But I can not enable a channel post Audyssey that was not on in the first place, w/o having to re-run Audyssey.


I have gone back and forth a few times with regard to having a center back channel. It was present when I ran Audyssey, and I have turned it off then back on a couple times via the speaker selection menu, and appear to have retained the use of Audyssey processing.


Is this normal behavior? Is the front center treated differently? Have I totally lost the plot? ;-)


Brian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,128 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by meat_rocket /forum/post/16595714


I did change speaker configuration for the center from large to small but not to none. I have no idea why Audyssey would set my center to large even though the LCR are all the same make/model and the fl/fr are set to small. I find the audyssey setup is a tad weak on the bass side which is why I wanted to change the speaker sizes.

Audyssey does not decide on Large and Small. Marantz does. I believe they are still using the old-school 80 Hz as their decision point. Audyssey recommends that all speakers are set to Small so that bass is redirected to the sub. If they are Large, then no bass goes to the sub from those channels.


But this still doesn't explain why it would reset the measurements. It shouldn't do that if you just change to Small. I'm afraid you will have to contact Marantz about this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Chris,


Do you now if there is any plans to create a DSX 11 channel system(wide, height,and rear). And if there is are there any products that are planning on supporting this. For instance Audyssey's own sound products (like the Sound Equalizer or something new).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,128 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jek88 /forum/post/16599003


Chris,


Do you now if there is any plans to create a DSX 11 channel system(wide, height,and rear). And if there is are there any products that are planning on supporting this.

DSX already supports 11 channels (and beyond--it is fully scalable), but the first products with that configuration have not yet been announced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey /forum/post/16599025


DSX already supports 11 channels (and beyond--it is fully scalable), but the first products with that configuration have not yet been announced.

Oh I didn't mean software type I meant like a hardware system (processors,eqs,etc.). Sorry for the confusion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Can anyone tell me if changing from RCA to balanced cables from preamp to amp will affect existing calibration? How about differing cable lengths (less than 20' from current to new)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,128 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jek88 /forum/post/16599034


Oh I didn't mean software type I meant like a hardware system (processors,eqs,etc.). Sorry for the confusion.

That is also what I meant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,128 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by enodog /forum/post/16599209


Can anyone tell me if changing from RCA to balanced cables from preamp to amp will affect existing calibration? How about differing cable lengths (less than 20' from current to new)?

Changing from unbalanced to balanced will have no difference in performance and therefore no need for recalibration. Same for proposed cable length difference. The only benefit of balanced interconnects is the rejection of noise. But if it's not there to begin with there is no difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,710 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey /forum/post/16601399


Changing from unbalanced to balanced will have no difference in performance and therefore no need for recalibration. Same for proposed cable length difference. The only benefit of balanced interconnects is the rejection of noise. But if it's not there to begin with there is no difference.

One caveat: This assumes that you are changing all channels from RCA (single-ended) to XLR (balanced). If you are changing only some channels, it will be necessary to recalibrate channel levels as XLR voltage output is usually higher than RCA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
371 Posts
This is an exceptionally long thread spanning several years. I spent about half an hour looking for a contemporary answer to the following question and did not have much luck, though it was in the first five posts:


- How do the Audyssey implementations compare/contrast with other solutions (Pioneer, Yamaha) in 2009?


Any feedback or link to a post I might have missed would be appreciated. Looking for anything simple and fact-based (e.g. comparative list of features of equalization methods), I have no desire to introduce a subjective debate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,128 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by sphinx99 /forum/post/16601462


This is an exceptionally long thread spanning several years. I spent about half an hour looking for a contemporary answer to the following question and did not have much luck, though it was in the first five posts:


- How do the Audyssey implementations compare/contrast with other solutions (Pioneer, Yamaha) in 2009?


Any feedback or link to a post I might have missed would be appreciated. Looking for anything simple and fact-based (e.g. comparative list of features of equalization methods), I have no desire to introduce a subjective debate.

I can provide the basic technical differences:


1) Audyssey uses multiple measurements to capture the required acoustical information around the listening area. Other solutions use a single measurement.


2) Audyssey analyzes these measurements in the time domain and this provides info about direct and reflected sound. Other solutions analyze in the frequency domain.


3) Audyssey uses FIR (time and frequency domain) filters for room correction. Depending on the version (2EQ, MultEQ, MultEQ XT) the filters have hundreds to thousands of control points that can be used to shape the response. Other methods use parametric EQ with IIR filters that provide 10-15 bands.


There are many other finer details that have to do with how measurements are combined, how perceptual information is included, how subwoofers are treated, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,948 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey /forum/post/16601683


I1) Audyssey uses multiple measurements to capture the required acoustical information around the listening area. Other solutions use a single measurement.

Most of the other systems now support multiple measurements too, although sometimes only on the higher-end models (e.g. Yamaha from the RX-V1900 and up).


But for me an important difference people should be aware of is that Audyssey doesn't allow manual tweaking of the results, whereas the other systems do (and I'm ignoring MultEQ Pro which is not supposed to be an end-user tool). Sure the user can make a mess if you let him change the results, but having the choice would be a good thing.


(I'd like to see more control over Dynamic EQ too, with at least a user-specified gain factor to tone down the effect, in addition to the offset you've talked about).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,803 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey /forum/post/16601683


I can provide the basic technical differences:


1) Audyssey uses multiple measurements to capture the required acoustical information around the listening area. Other solutions use a single measurement.


2) Audyssey analyzes these measurements in the time domain and this provides info about direct and reflected sound. Other solutions analyze in the frequency domain.


3) Audyssey uses FIR (time and frequency domain) filters for room correction. Depending on the version (2EQ, MultEQ, MultEQ XT) the filters have hundreds to thousands of control points that can be used to shape the response. Other methods use parametric EQ with IIR filters that provide 10-15 bands.


There are many other finer details that have to do with how measurements are combined, how perceptual information is included, how subwoofers are treated, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kriktsemaj99 /forum/post/16602403


Most of the other systems now support multiple measurements too, although sometimes only on the higher-end models (e.g. Yamaha from the RX-V1900 and up).


But for me an important difference people should be aware of is that Audyssey doesn't allow manual tweaking of the results, whereas the other systems do (and I'm ignoring MultEQ Pro which is not supposed to be an end-user tool). Sure the user can make a mess if you let him change the results, but having the choice would be a good thing.


(I'd like to see more control over Dynamic EQ too, with at least a user-specified gain factor to tone down the effect, in addition to the offset you've talked about).

Did you bother to read 2) and 3) of Chris's response? Do you understand what he is saying? If you do, you would realize the impracticality of what you are asking.


And Dynamic EQ DOES have user specified gain factors in several recently introduced AVRs and processors.
 

·
Answer Seeking / Sharing
NHT, PSA, Denon, Emotiva, Niles, Sony, Oppo, Roku, Alienware, Mac, Rega, Akai, Parasound, Nakamichi
Joined
·
2,003 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by kriktsemaj99 /forum/post/16602403



But for me an important difference people should be aware of is that Audyssey doesn't allow manual tweaking of the results, whereas the other systems do ....

This would not be possible or practical for Audyssey since it uses "thousands" of points. Plus, you can't re-adjust the time domain corrections. FYI, I have set up some flagship receivers (their top of the line) from Sony, Pioneer, and Yamaha for friends and family and IMHO cannot match Audyssey - many of them getting rid of their new receiver for one incorporating Audyssey.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by kriktsemaj99 /forum/post/16602403


Most of the other systems now support multiple measurements too, although sometimes only on the higher-end models (e.g. Yamaha from the RX-V1900 and up).


But for me an important difference people should be aware of is that Audyssey doesn't allow manual tweaking of the results, whereas the other systems do (and I'm ignoring MultEQ Pro which is not supposed to be an end-user tool). Sure the user can make a mess if you let him change the results, but having the choice would be a good thing.


(I'd like to see more control over Dynamic EQ too, with at least a user-specified gain factor to tone down the effect, in addition to the offset you've talked about).

I agree completely. And, in fact, I don't ever see myself using the Audyssey results because of it. I'm an old-time audio guy, and nothing Audyssey has come up with has pleased me yet. It's always too high-end hyped. That must be a popular sound these days because it seems to be what salesmen do at all the stores, or it's just a way to sell cheap amps and speakers. I will eventually set the graphic EQ by ear. And I really wish there was a simple loudness contour that could be switched on and off, separate from the Audyssey setup. That plain old loudness curve always does the trick for me for low level listening. I wonder if the Trinnov Optimizer in the upcoming Outlaw 997 will allow user tweaking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,948 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by cavchameleon /forum/post/16602908


This would not be possible or practical for Audyssey since it uses "thousands" of points. Plus, you can't re-adjust the time domain corrections. FYI, I have set up some flagship receivers (their top of the line) from Sony, Pioneer, and Yamaha for friends and family and IMHO cannot match Audyssey - many of them getting rid of their new receiver for one incorporating Audyssey.

Anything is possible, and it might be enough give the normal user as much control as MultEQ Pro currently offers. I know that Audyssey's method is far more sophisticated than, for example, Yamaha's YPAO, but as long as it's all or nothing I'm not going to buy into it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,803 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by nukequazar /forum/post/16602980


I agree completely. And, in fact, I don't ever see myself using the Audyssey results because of it. I'm an old-time audio guy, and nothing Audyssey has come up with has pleased me yet. It's always too high-end hyped. That must be a popular sound these days because it seems to be what salesmen do at all the stores, or it's just a way to sell cheap amps and speakers. I will eventually set the graphic EQ by ear. And I really wish there was a simple loudness contour that could be switched on and off, separate from the Audyssey setup. That plain old loudness curve always does the trick for me for low level listening. I wonder if the Trinnov Optimizer in the upcoming Outlaw 997 will allow user tweaking.

HELLO! Its the 21st century.


You don't like what Audyssey does because you have never heard CORRECT audio. I'd be willing to bet that you are one of those people who set their 5-band "graphic equalizer" in a "V" shape. Maybe you upgraded recently to a 13 band, allowing a "U" shape curve. Big improvement. An octave band equilizer is totally worthless and I doubt that there is anyone in the world who could set a 1/3 octave band equalizer by ear.


The fact that you long for the old Fletcher-Munson "loudness" control shows how far behind the technology you are. And it has nothing to do with selling "cheap amps and speakers."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,948 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesky636 /forum/post/16602557


Did you bother to read 2) and 3) of Chris's response? Do you understand what he is saying? If you do, you would realize the impracticality of what you are asking.

I was implicitly agreeing with 2) and 3), and only disagreeing with 1).

Quote:
And Dynamic EQ DOES have user specified gain factors in several recently introduced AVRs and processors.

I believe Chris said that an offset was recently added to Dynamic EQ, which is quite different from a multiplicative gain factor.
 
15021 - 15040 of 79637 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top