What do you think of your Audyssey? Use it? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : What do you think of your Audyssey? Use it?



Mr Peabody
07-18-2008, 07:18 PM
Hi, I have talked with a couple people who didn't agree or like the set up Audyssey gave them. One was a novis so I didn't give that much weight, the other should know but the processor was new to them and they had electrostats. I read on another forum that electrostats can give Audyssey a fit and not get accurate readings. I'd be interested in knowing why but that's another issue. I will be getting the av8003 in the near future which will have Audyssey and was curious to know how it worked for others and your opinions on it.

Worf101
07-21-2008, 04:58 AM
I'll be interested in knowing the same thing myself. I've always been a SPL and tape measure guy myself.

Da Worfster

kexodusc
07-21-2008, 05:27 AM
Hi, I have talked with a couple people who didn't agree or like the set up Audyssey gave them. One was a novis so I didn't give that much weight, the other should know but the processor was new to them and they had electrostats. I read on another forum that electrostats can give Audyssey a fit and not get accurate readings. I'd be interested in knowing why but that's another issue. I will be getting the av8003 in the near future which will have Audyssey and was curious to know how it worked for others and your opinions on it.
Mr. P.

I don't own an Audyssey piece, but I've used 4 receivers/processors with them helping friends set their systems up. I have some experience with them.

I like Audyssey better than similar offerings from Yamaha or Pioneer, but it has the same flaws.

First, when it comes to distance and SPL, I think they are great for speakers. I have a $400 Galaxy Audio SPL meter that I use for testing speakers, it's far more accurate than the Rat Shack meters, and every HT receiver I've used with auto-setup, $250 or more has calculated distance and SPL as good as I could measure with the meter and tape. The exception here is with subwoofers, where Audyssey still doesn't do a perfect job, but I think that's just a reality in a lot of rooms. I've read many a reviewer have problems with auto-setups, but I wasn't in their room to hear if there was ambient noise - in my experience they are damn good at level/distance calcs.

For EQ'ing - I've had mixed results - usually with center channels in the 300 -1000 Hz range, a lot of centers are designed to work close to TV's or walls and factor in Baffle Step Compensation - the test tones these things put out tend over/underestimate the EQ'ing amounts in that range, IMO and don't always do a great job. ( a pretty important range of frequencies). Depending on settings you use it might adjust your main speakers to equalize with the center, or all speakers to meet "somewhere in the middle". Point is, there's a lot going on in a room and perfect results every time is not gonna happen. Oh, and again, eq'ing low bass is probably best done manually with an external EQ, though I haven't actually used an Audyssey on 2008 model year or newer gear so maybe they've improved it. A lot of optional settings lead to less than desireable results too, so it might take a few iterations to find what works in your room.

But...as a starting point they are very good, and IMO absolutely essential for multichannel now. These things can deliver improvements at the listening position that are otherwise not obtainable - particularly when you consider many people would spend thousands of dollars in electronic upgrades that deliver less additional benefit IMO. They do a great job of correcting problems induced by the real world speaker placement compromises many people have to accept to fit a home theater into their living rooms. It wasn't that long ago when parametric EQ's in home theaters cost thousands of dollars. Now they're rather generic, and more advanced than those earlier versions.

I think they aren't necessary or even desireable for stereo music. I have found that for 2-channel use, especially in rooms with acoustic treatment, and super especially if you like even modest-nearfield listening, you are better off to disengage the eq'ing. Unless there's a serious, room-induced artifact that needs EQ'ing, your main speakers are probably fairly competent in a stereo environment. I'm not sure what damages the EQ's do to phase/time domains, but on every one I've spent time with people seem to agree turning the processor's EQ off in favour of "bypass" modes is best. You can hear the difference (subtle) with a bit of careful listening, sometimes it's not even apparent, but if that's the case, then why engage the EQ at all? But try for yourself.

Never heard anything about Electrostat speaker problems, but I do recall some people with bipolar/dipolar speakers having mixed results so maybe there's something to it?

Mr Peabody
07-21-2008, 06:02 PM
I spoke with a ML dealer and it's not that ML's are electrostats, it's that, you said it Kex, they are bipolar. Can't they get meds for that? botta bing!

I guess we will all have to visit the Audessy page on AVS. But undoubtedly it will come down to trying and experimenting myself.