Audyssey odessey [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Audyssey odessey



pixelthis
04-14-2011, 09:44 AM
I LIKE my Sharp Blu player, hated replacing it.
But today I reset the microprocessor, and its working fine(hate to do that).
But the default is LPCM, and I Like the receiver doing the decoding of audio codecs.
Well, I finally got that switched back around, and the little light came on my reciever.
And the sound! A lot better with the receiver doing the decoding chores.
TURNS out that LPCM goes straight through my receiver with no chaser, and no
AUDYSSEY.
And what a difference Audyssey makes. Some like treating a room, I never have.
well, with AUDYSSEY you don't have to, really, just set the little plastic mike and let this program do its little dance. The difference in sound is nothing short of spectacular,
as I have recently been reminded. LETS just make it a legal requirement that it is put on
every receiver costing more than fifty bucks. OKAY?
Once a skeptic, now a fanatic. You can play around with panels and wall treatments
all you want. BUT that just became unnecessary. And I have a new item on my list
of "must have" features when buying a processor.:1:

E-Stat
04-15-2011, 01:43 PM
You can play around with panels and wall treatments
all you want. BUT that just became unnecessary.
Room treatments treat rooms. For everyone in the room. EQ treats the spot where the mic is placed. Which works fine for solo viewing from one place.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-15-2011, 01:59 PM
Room treatments treat rooms. For everyone in the room. EQ treats the spot where the mic is placed. Which works fine for solo viewing from one place.

rw

Not Audyssey Ralph. My version of Audyssey will allow you to EQ 32 different points in space. In my rather large room, that kind of flexibility allows for a flat response in 12 seats. My room is rather generous with seating, so 12 is all I chose to use.

I still use room treatments though, because in doing so, I don't have to rely 100% on the Audyssey processing to get the job done.


A lot better with the receiver doing the decoding chores.

This is completely false. At Disney we have done DBT testing on this, and nobody and I mean NOBODY could hear the difference. The decoding chips for both the players and the receivers are all standardized. No decoding is better than the other, the chips performance is pretty much the same.

E-Stat
04-16-2011, 06:14 AM
Not Audyssey Ralph. My version of Audyssey will allow you to EQ 32 different points in space. In my rather large room, that kind of flexibility allows for a flat response in 12 seats. My room is rather generous with seating, so 12 is all I chose to use.
First of all, is that what Pix uses? Don't think so. So, the system averages the output and individually equalizes each speaker for "ideal" output. How does that really address low frequency modes far away from the speakers?

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-16-2011, 06:58 AM
First of all, is that what Pix uses? Don't think so.

Pixelbrain's allows for 8 different measurements, which is still better than conventional equalization. 8 measurements is enough for small and medium sized rooms.



So, the system averages the output and individually equalizes each speaker for "ideal" output.

That is correct



How does that really address low frequency modes far away from the speakers?

rw

It is not just measuring the speakers, but the speakers response in the room which includes room modes.(it does not deal with nodes for obvious reasons)

E-Stat
04-16-2011, 07:05 AM
It is not just measuring the speakers, but the speakers response in the room which includes room modes.(it does not deal with nodes for obvious reasons)
My question is not so much how it calculates the answers, but rather how it delivers them given it has limited points where it can apply the correction. Do you spread your subs around the room? If not, I don't see how that could be as effective as doing the same with bass traps. Or for the majority of folks who use but one sub.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-16-2011, 07:59 AM
My question is not so much how it calculates the answers, but rather how it delivers them given it has limited points where it can apply the correction. Do you spread your subs around the room? If not, I don't see how that could be as effective as doing the same with bass traps. Or for the majority of folks who use but one sub.

rw

Let's push one myth aside early in the game. Most bass traps are not particularly effective below 80hz. They reduce the overall bass energy in the room, but cannot address particular frequencies. Audyssey can deal with a particular room mode more effectively than bass traps, because it can target its correction to a particular frequency.

My subs are not spread around the room, they are on the front wall, on the floor just below the screen.

Those 32 points in a room can be closely targeted, or spread out to cover all seating areas. Bass traps not only reduce energy near walls and corners, but in the center of the room as well. That part of the room is usually where the bass is the weakest anyway. Audyssey only reduces energy where it is needed, and leaves all of the other frequencies that are flat alone.

E-Stat
04-16-2011, 08:10 AM
Most bass traps are not particularly effective below 80hz.
Nor are they intended to be. Just the ones you need.


Those 32 points in a room can be closely targeted...
Via exactly what when you use seven speakers? Do you use 32?


Audyssey only reduces energy where it is needed, and leaves all of the other frequencies that are flat alone.
So with each speaker's EQ profile, it magically decreases bass at one distance and not at another? Right!

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-16-2011, 08:32 AM
Via exactly what when you use seven speakers? Do you use 32?

My system does not use seven speakers, it uses seven channels. This system does not just measure speakers, but it measures the speakers response at the position you put the microphone in. Each speaker including the sub(s) can be measured and have correction applied from 32 points in space.



So with each speaker's EQ profile, it magically decreases bass at one distance and not at another? Right!

rw

It will only reduce the bass at points where it is needed. If 30 measuring points don't need any bass correction but 2 do, it will only apply correction on those 2. It does what it has to do to flatten the response over the measured area.

E-Stat
04-16-2011, 08:43 AM
Each speaker including the sub(s) can be measured and have correction applied from 32 points in space.
Using seven sources.


IIt does what it has to do to flatten the response over the measured area.
I'll ask the question again. How does a speaker reduce output near its proximity while not doing the same in the middle of the room? This is based upon your assertion that "Audyssey only reduces energy where it is needed". Clearly such is not possible when correction is needed at various distances from the seven "correction" sources.

Further, EQ cannot address other room issues such as first reflection points and factors which create an overly live and reflective room based upon wall and floor construction.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-16-2011, 07:12 PM
Using seven sources.


I'll ask the question again. How does a speaker reduce output near its proximity while not doing the same in the middle of the room? This is based upon your assertion that "Audyssey only reduces energy where it is needed". Clearly such is not possible when correction is needed at various distances from the seven "correction" sources.

Further, EQ cannot address other room issues such as first reflection points and factors which create an overly live and reflective room based upon wall and floor construction.

rw

Rather than arguing against your ignorance, here are some links that describe what the system does, and how well it does it.

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/acoustics/audyssey-multeq-pro-sound-equalizer

http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround/307mitr/

http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround/1108mitr/index.html


While non of these reviews include the XT32 pro with the professional kit, it does address the MultiEQ XT Pro, a system a step down from mine

E-Stat
04-16-2011, 08:36 PM
Rather than arguing against your ignorance, here are some links that describe what the system does, and how well it does it.
Thanks for reminding me to read the Stereophile article again.

"This suggests that MultEQ Pro is not a panacea, but requires an already well-configured system in a reasonably good acoustic environment—and Audyssey says as much. To correct the sound of a room whose surfaces consisted entirely of tiles and windows would be asking too much. "

rw

Feanor
04-17-2011, 03:51 AM
I was deighted with the Audyssey results in case of my rather modest Onkyo TX-SR508 receiver that I've had 6-7 months -- far better than anything I'd got by simply selecting "large" vs. "small" and entering distance from listening position.

This isn't to argue against room treatments or sensible speaker postioning, let me be clear.

According to Onkyo, my receiver includes "Audyssey 2EQ, Audyssey Dynamic Volume, and Audyssey Dynamic EQ". I have forgotten exactly what each does. In my case I have 3 three microphone positions that instructions say are supposed to be different listening positions. It does seem that the calibration process takes into consideration each speaker for each of the three listening postions. I.e. somehow each channel is corrected to reflect some sort of average of the three positions. Anyway, it works pretty well.

E-Stat
04-17-2011, 06:59 AM
This isn't to argue against room treatments or sensible speaker postioning, let me be clear.
Nor am I arguing against the benefits of EQ. Just the unsupported claims. I would like to have that feature with my mid-fi HT system given the room it's in.

rw

pixelthis
04-17-2011, 09:46 AM
Not Audyssey Ralph. My version of Audyssey will allow you to EQ 32 different points in space. In my rather large room, that kind of flexibility allows for a flat response in 12 seats. My room is rather generous with seating, so 12 is all I chose to use.


[QUOTE]This is completely false. At Disney we have done DBT testing on this, and nobody and I mean NOBODY could hear the difference. The decoding chips for both the players and the receivers are all standardized. No decoding is better than the other, the chips performance is pretty much the same.

As usual you misunderstand completely.
REREAD the post(or read it for the first time).
My BLU player was outputting LPCM, which my receiver read as multichannel, which means that my AUDYSSEY was not on. AFTER I changed the output to "bitstream" , leaving my receiver to do the decoding chores , activating AUDYSSEY, improving the sound immensely. IN other words you missed the point, as usual.:1:

pixelthis
04-17-2011, 10:13 AM
First of all, is that what Pix uses? Don't think so. So, the system averages the output and individually equalizes each speaker for "ideal" output. How does that really address low frequency modes far away from the speakers?

rw

No, never heard of such a thing, but my system allows for several points of measurement,
three or more, I really don't recall at the moment. I just used two.
And to address another point you raise, yes room treatment can be done in addition to
AUDYSSEY, but, IMHO, is completely redundant, a waste of time.
IF you ever use this EQ system you will see what I am talking about. BASICALLY,
this system compensates for room problems, leaving no need to fix them.
ALSO, talky and I COMPLETELY disagree on just about everything, but we do agree
on the basic goodness of AUDYSSEY. Even Talky sees the advantages of it.
And yes, you would like this with your "mid-fi" system.
MY "MID-FI" system sounds like a million bucks with this system.
ITS so good that my usual preference for as pure a signal path for audio listening as possible has changed somewhat. A real advance. A real use of computer power to improve sound, and to allow for the complicated task of EQ for multichannel systems.
THE best sounding system I have ever heard was one belonging to a friends dad.
AN EQ'ED system using a record with tones for each band to zero out the levels.
Sounded amazing. And AUDYSSEY is the first thing I have ever seen to beat it.
Out of all of the changes to my system in the past year or so, this is the best.
I love having friends over and doing a comparo between AUDYSSEY switched off and on.
Even cillvillians who don't notice much of anything are amazed by the difference .:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-17-2011, 10:16 AM
Thanks for reminding me to read the Stereophile article again.

"This suggests that MultEQ Pro is not a panacea, but requires an already well-configured system in a reasonably good acoustic environment—and Audyssey says as much. To correct the sound of a room whose surfaces consisted entirely of tiles and windows would be asking too much. "

rw

Those comments apply to the MultEQ pro, not the MultEQXT32 Pro. There is a world of difference between the two. More filters with higher resolution and more processing power. Two of my smaller rooms run XT32 Pro, and they have zero acoustical treatment in them aside from wall to wall carpet and the furniture.

Kal's review applies to his room and system. It does not translate to my room and system. It applies to the level of the processing he used, not the one I use. In other words, his comments cannot be universally applied to all rooms, and he has stated that on Hometheatershack were he often visits.

pixelthis
04-17-2011, 10:26 AM
Using seven sources.


I'll ask the question again. How does a speaker reduce output near its proximity while not doing the same in the middle of the room? This is based upon your assertion that "Audyssey only reduces energy where it is needed". Clearly such is not possible when correction is needed at various distances from the seven "correction" sources.

Further, EQ cannot address other room issues such as first reflection points and factors which create an overly live and reflective room based upon wall and floor construction.

rw

Sorry, but wrong.
Analog EQ maybe, but this system plays back a tone which has to sound a certain way,
in several different circumstances. Its not just playing a test tone and adjusting for
one parameter, but several.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, "room" treatment might actually decrease the
effectiveness of this EQ system, as this system adjusts your system based on your room
and how its laid out., "Treating" it will change what the EQ has adjusted for.:1:

pixelthis
04-17-2011, 10:45 AM
I was deighted with the Audyssey results in case of my rather modest Onkyo TX-SR508 receiver that I've had 6-7 months -- far better than anything I'd got by simply selecting "large" vs. "small" and entering distance from listening position.

This isn't to argue against room treatments or sensible speaker postioning, let me be clear.

According to Onkyo, my receiver includes "Audyssey 2EQ, Audyssey Dynamic Volume, and Audyssey Dynamic EQ". I have forgotten exactly what each does. In my case I have 3 three microphone positions that instructions say are supposed to be different listening positions. It does seem that the calibration process takes into consideration each speaker for each of the three listening postions. I.e. somehow each channel is corrected to reflect some sort of average of the three positions. Anyway, it works pretty well.

I set up a friends 508 several months ago, and it does sound great.
MY receiver(Integra 6.9) allows for up to six positions. According to my manual,
the system detects the speakers connected, their properties, bass management crossover
info, distances, etc. It then adjusts for the room in freq and time domain, so it
would seem that "room treatments" would actually lessen the effectiveness .
DYNAMIC EQ maintains proper octave to octave balance at any volume level.
SO I wouldn't bother with room treatment with this type of eq.:1:

E-Stat
04-17-2011, 11:09 AM
Kal's review applies to his room and system. It does not translate to my room and system. .
Those were your references which I had read before. :)

rw

bobsticks
04-17-2011, 11:26 AM
ALSO, talky and I COMPLETELY disagree on just about everything, but we do agree
on the basic goodness of AUDYSSEY. Even Talky sees the advantages of it.

Somebody has to feel awkward about this...

pixelthis
04-17-2011, 11:51 AM
Somebody has to feel awkward about this...

Not really. TALKY had to be right about something, sooner or later.
NO WORRIES, he can still vote for Obama.:1:

E-Stat
04-17-2011, 12:08 PM
Analog EQ maybe, but this system plays back a tone which has to sound a certain way in several different circumstances. Its not just playing a test tone and adjusting for one parameter, but several.
Maybe some day you'll understand the cause and effect of a speaker's first reflection points in a room. Hint: they are created by the speaker's radiation pattern which is largely independent of frequency. Applying EQ does not change the underlying cause - the radiation pattern of the speaker itself. Nor does it combat slap echo.

rw

pixelthis
04-17-2011, 12:52 PM
Maybe some day you'll understand the cause and effect of a speaker's first reflection points in a room. Hint: they are created by the speaker's radiation pattern which is largely independent of frequency. Applying EQ does not change the underlying cause - the radiation pattern of the speaker itself. Nor does it combat slap echo.

rw

REGULAR PLAIN OLD "EQ" NO. You do realise that this is a computer program that
reads not just freq but time and distance
NOW I gave up the scopes and other sophisticated gear I used to have, but the literature
says it compensates for rooms, and I TEND TO BELIEVE THEM.
Why? Because the results speak for themselves, and the results are silly good .
I didn't use AUDYSSEY the first several months, only after setting up a friends receiver
including his AUDYSSEY, and being floored by the results. A modest Onkyo 508
and it sounded amazing, so I decided to try it. SO I understand your skepticism.
I was there also. AND trust me, this is not a simple compensation program.
Its a software program and a silly triangle shaped mike, and the results are amazing.
IT combats bad sound, in other words, and is something else entirely.:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-17-2011, 01:21 PM
Maybe some day you'll understand the cause and effect of a speaker's first reflection points in a room. Hint: they are created by the speaker's radiation pattern which is largely independent of frequency. Applying EQ does not change the underlying cause - the radiation pattern of the speaker itself. Nor does it combat slap echo.

rw

Ralph, I don't need you to lecture me about room acoustics, I have minor degree in it okay.

First, nobody has definitive information on the helpfulness of treating first reflections. Some acoustician's think you have to absorb those first reflections, and others say to diffuse it. Floyd Toole's book "Sound Reproduction" states that first reflections should be treated only when the speakers have a poor off axis frequency response. Dennis Erskine, and Earl Geddes agree with this approach. Others say that the distance between the speakers and the walls determine if the first reflection should be treated. Another school of thought says that angling the speakers directly at the listeners reduces the amplitude of first reflections. This reduces the need for side wall treatment.

Other school of thought's say the rules for first reflection treatment are invalid for multichannel systems, as wall treatments would disturb "phantom" imaging between the left and right and left and right side speakers. Another consideration is the use of full and extended range speakers versus sub sat systems.

The reality is the proof is in the pudding, and both of my system using XT32 and no room treatments achieve a post processing measurement of -+2.5 from 20-50khz. That is an excellent measurement in anyone's book, so please spare me your outdated beliefs based on two channel thinking and conventional EQ..

As far as slap echo, there is only a problem with them if you hear them in your room. I don't in mine.

E-Stat
04-17-2011, 02:13 PM
REGULAR PLAIN OLD "EQ" NO. You do realise that this is a computer program that
reads not just freq but time and distance
Which has nothing to do with radiation patterns.

rw

E-Stat
04-17-2011, 02:17 PM
Ralph, I don't need you to lecture me about room acoustics,
Are you and Pixel the same person?


First, nobody has definitive information on the helpfulness of treating first reflections...
None of which is frequency driven. It is the random scattering of the image.


As far as slap echo, there is only a problem with them if you hear them in your room. I don't in mine.
Which in no way supports the notion that EQ is what mitigated that problem in your environment.

rw

Worf101
04-18-2011, 06:09 AM
Well, nice as Audyssey might be, I can no longer use it. Last time I tried it I blew a tweet in my ADS 1290's. Much as I like an "idiot proof" system, I like my mains even more. Audyseey out, Rat Shack SPL and tape measurer in.

Worf

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-18-2011, 08:51 AM
Are you and Pixel the same person?

Ah, but the real question is are you and Mr. Potato head the same person?



None of which is frequency driven. It is the random scattering of the image.

The random scattering of reflections does have a plus side. It also enhances image breathe and spaciousness. Everyone has there own flavor of what they want their imaging to be. If I were stupid enough to follow your advice and treat my side walls, the result would be improved image specificity at the expense of image spaciousness. When you are already in a small room, and sitting rather close to the speakers, you don't need improved imaging, you need the spaciousness. Experimentation and measurements trump global assumptions based on a two channel mentality.



Which in no way supports the notion that EQ is what mitigated that problem in your environment.

rw

I don't believe I said it did, did I? I never mention slap echo, you did. . Stuffing words in my mouth to make your point show the lack of depth of your arguments. There was no slap echo before equalization.

pixelthis
04-18-2011, 09:51 AM
Well, nice as Audyssey might be, I can no longer use it. Last time I tried it I blew a tweet in my ADS 1290's. Much as I like an "idiot proof" system, I like my mains even more. Audyseey out, Rat Shack SPL and tape measurer in.

Worf

My old way of doing it.
AND blowing out the jams had nothing to do with blowing that tweet, did it?:1:

E-Stat
04-18-2011, 02:46 PM
Ah, but the real question is are you and Mr. Potato head the same person?
I certainly don't recall answering a post addressed to him as you did with Pixel.


Experimentation and measurements trump global assumptions based on a two channel mentality.
I base my assertions on empirical evidence, no matter how many channels I'm listening to at the time.


I don't believe I said it did, did I?
Fair enough. That would be your alter ego who believes that EQ can atone for all room sins.

rw

drseid
04-19-2011, 09:30 AM
While I think I will (wisely) avoid getting into the "to treat the room or not to treat the room while using Audyssey" debate, I can say that after trying out Audyssey MultEQ for the first time a couple of days ago when setting up my new pre/pro I confess I am really impressed.

When I swapped out my Cary Cinema 6 for the new Integra DHC-40.2, I thought my 2-channel listening days may be over, as I was really worried about my sound quality going majorly downhill in that area. When I finished the regular speaker setup with a good old fashioned Rat Shack meter, I was not happy with the results at all, and was really regretting the swap (I needed to change pre/pros for the HDMI 1.4 capabilities my Cary lacked). I then setup the Audyssey mic on a tripod and took the reading from several locations in the room and then listened to the same CD (Alison Krauss and Union Station's Paper Airplane) using the MultEQ and I was amazed at the difference. The sound quality was just as good as when I was using my Cary (that does not have Audyssey) and perhaps it was even better.

I switched back to the non-Audyssey enhanced setup and my bass was noticably more boomy and resolution appeared diminished. Bottom line is I am sold on its benefits in my room, at least. I can only imagine what the XT32 might do if I had that version as Sir T does.

Good stuff. :-)

---Dave

pixelthis
04-19-2011, 12:27 PM
While I think I will (wisely) avoid getting into the "to treat the room or not to treat the room while using Audyssey" debate, I can say that after trying out Audyssey MultEQ for the first time a couple of days ago when setting up my new pre/pro I confess I am really impressed.

When I swapped out my Cary Cinema 6 for the new Integra DHC-40.2, I thought my 2-channel listening days may be over, as I was really worried about my sound quality going majorly downhill in that area. When I finished the regular speaker setup with a good old fashioned Rat Shack meter, I was not happy with the results at all, and was really regretting the swap (I needed to change pre/pros for the HDMI 1.4 capabilities my Cary lacked). I then setup the Audyssey mic on a tripod and took the reading from several locations in the room and then listened to the same CD (Alison Krauss and Union Station's Paper Airplane) using the MultEQ and I was amazed at the difference. The sound quality was just as good as when I was using my Cary (that does not have Audyssey) and perhaps it was even better.

I switched back to the non-Audyssey enhanced setup and my bass was noticably more boomy and resolution appeared diminished. Bottom line is I am sold on its benefits in my room, at least. I can only imagine what the XT32 might do if I had that version as Sir T does.

Good stuff. :-)

---Dave

ANOTHER convert.
You probably have the same version as I do, and its probably good enough. Its so good
that I don't understand how the other can be 3500 bucks better, really.
BEST part is what it does to two channel , IMHO.:1:

pixelthis
04-19-2011, 12:35 PM
I certainly don't recall answering a post addressed to him as you did with Pixel.


I base my assertions on empirical evidence, no matter how many channels I'm listening to at the time.


Fair enough. That would be your alter ego who believes that EQ can atone for all room sins.

rw

You are like the Indian who thinks that the yahoos riding around in the big wooden
whale are no big deal.
FOR THE LAST TIME, this is not just an "EQ" system, thats like saying that a Mustang Cobra is "peppy".
The AUDYSSEY system fixes the signal reaching it,period, slap echo and
other comedians aside. Its the great equalizer, making cheap gear sound like megabuck stuff. You are always hardheaded, but you will learn.:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-19-2011, 01:31 PM
I certainly don't recall answering a post addressed to him as you did with Pixel.

So what!



I base my assertions on empirical evidence, no matter how many channels I'm listening to at the time.

Well, it appears that your so called "empirical" evidence is flawed, and does not apply in every case. Acoustics are not a one size fits all proposition. It is a do as needed proposition.



Fair enough. That would be your alter ego who believes that EQ can atone for all room sins.

I don't have an alter ego, and if I did, you still have no proof he said that EQ can atone for all room sins. You need to cut the BS short RALPH. Since you don't know the basic premise of how Audyssey works, or never heard it at work, then perhaps you should do so before you start spouting off nonsensical comments that are not applicable to the product.

When you are working out of ignorance, perhaps you should give the keyboard a rest.

E-Stat
04-21-2011, 08:00 AM
So what!
Only the obvious. You quoted what I said to Pixel and told me not to lecture you. Is there any part of that disconnect you don't understand?


Well, it appears that your so called "empirical" evidence is flawed, and does not apply in every case.
Here we agree with your statement: "Experimentation and measurements trump global assumptions ". Which is why room treatment products exist.


Since you don't know the basic premise of how Audyssey works, or never heard it at work, then perhaps you should do so before you start spouting off nonsensical comments that are not applicable to the product.
I first read a bit about it years ago. It is a well developed equalization product that involves the total room response. It corrects the frequency response signal sent to the speakers - but is utterly incapable of changing the way the speakers themselves radiate into the room. It cannot reduce bass heavy output near wall boundaries and not have the same effect elsewhere.

rw

pixelthis
04-21-2011, 11:42 AM
Here we agree with your statement: "Experimentation and measurements trump global assumptions ". Which is why room treatment products exist.


But I believe they are on their way out


I first read a bit about it years ago. It is a well developed equalization product that involves the total room response. It corrects the frequency response signal sent to the speakers - but is utterly incapable of changing the way the speakers themselves radiate into the room. It cannot reduce bass heavy output near wall boundaries and not have the same effect elsewhere.


You change the way speakers "radiate" every time you adjust the volume.
THE FREQUENCY response is whats important with a speaker, you can fix most
problems with that. AUDYSSEY changes a speakers response until it sounds the way its
supposed to. ADJUSTING IT for the room is one of its main jobs. And it does it well.:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-21-2011, 12:24 PM
Only the obvious. You quoted what I said to Pixel and told me not to lecture you. Is there any part of that disconnect you don't understand?

Here is what I understand. You focus on BS when you don't have a strong argument, or when you are checked for trying to muddy the waters with nonsense.



Here we agree with your statement: "Experimentation and measurements trump global assumptions ". Which is why room treatment products exist.

Good, so we can throw out that "empirical" BS now. Room treatments are useless below 80hz were most room problems exist. Below 80hz is were Audyssey is more effective than room treatments. Audyssey has a market because most folks do not know how to use room treatments correctly. This is not to say that Audyssey can replace room treatment in every installation, but in some cases it is more effective than room treatment products. Audyssey is certainly more precise than room treatments in that Audyssey can target a specific frequency anomaly directly, and room treatments cannot.



I first read a bit about it years ago. It is a well developed equalization product that involves the total room response. It corrects the frequency response signal sent to the speakers - but is utterly incapable of changing the way the speakers themselves radiate into the room. It cannot reduce bass heavy output near wall boundaries and not have the same effect elsewhere.

rw

Since I don't sit near wall boundaries, I don't have to worry about hearing boundary reinforcement effects(red herring). Just because you have heavy bass output near the walls does not mean you will have heavy deep bass output at the seats. Just like with brick and mortar retail stores, acoustics in small rooms is location, location, location! Secondly, the radiation pattern of a speaker is a red herring comment designed to muddy the issue at hand. The issue at hand is what is happening at the seats, and this is where Audyssey is most effective. You do not have to change the radiation pattern of the speakers to correct its response at the seats. Just to prove this point, I use Audyssey with my baffle wall mounted speakers(rear reflections are suppressed by the wall), with free standing towers out in the room (complete with side and front wall reflections). It get's excellent results in both instances because of its flexibility, and its precision.

Audyssey does not correct the signals sent to the speakers, it corrects the signals coming FROM the speakers, AND the speakers interactions with the room as well.

E-Stat
04-21-2011, 12:28 PM
You change the way speakers "radiate" every time you adjust the volume.
I refer to its dispersive pattern - which is determined by the driver(s) and cabinet. Look at a polar or waterfall graph of a speaker's radiation pattern. Equalizing the signal doesn't change the physical behavior of the driver(s).

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-21-2011, 12:36 PM
I refer to its dispersive pattern - which is determined by the driver(s) and cabinet. Look at a polar or waterfall graph of a speaker's radiation pattern. Equalizing the signal doesn't change the physical behavior of the driver(s).

rw

You do not need to change the physical behavior of the drivers or the radiation pattern of the speakers. You need to change the results of the speakers interaction with the room itself, and how that is presented to the listening seat(s).

E-Stat
04-21-2011, 01:11 PM
Room treatments are useless below 80hz were most room problems exist. You were correct the first time around when you said "most" room treatments. Large bass traps are effective below 80 hz. Look here (http://www.tubetrap.com/technical.htm). Achieving flat response in my room required using eight 18" by six footers behind the speakers to flatten the bass response. Most of the correction was above 80 hz while some was below.


Audyssey has a market because most folks do not know how to use room treatments correctly. No doubt. Room treatments for dummies!


This is not to say that Audyssey can replace room treatment in every installation, but in some cases it is more effective than room treatment products. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! Let's repeat that for clarity since that has been my point to Pix all along:

This is not to say that Audyssey can replace room treatment in every installation...



Audyssey is certainly more precise than room treatments in that Audyssey can target a specific frequency anomaly directly, and room treatments cannot. Ok, but... It cannot fix a boundary problem while leaving the middle of the room "untreated" as you suggested earlier. Each speaker is given its own EQ profile and it radiates that signal uniformly into the room. The equalized signal cannot magically *stop* in the middle of the room!



You do not have to change the radiation pattern of the speakers to correct its response at the seats. Frequency response, yes. Solving random image reflections which affects only one side of a speaker's response requires different solutions.


Audyssey does not correct the signals sent to the speakers, it corrects the signals coming FROM the speakers, AND the speakers interactions with the room as well.The end result is that the speakers are sent an amplified signal containing the *corrected* profile.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-21-2011, 02:10 PM
You were correct the first time around when you said "most" room treatments. Large bass traps are effective below 80 hz. Look here (http://www.tubetrap.com/technical.htm). Achieving flat response in my room required using eight 18" by six footers behind the speakers to flatten the bass response. Most of the correction was above 80 hz while some was below.

The largest trap effects all frequencies equally between 40-400hz. What if I had a specific problem at 90hz(a peak), and the rest of the frequencies are relatively flat. With these traps, energy is sucked out of the room that does not need to be if the issue is at 90hz. Traps are for broadband issues, not for specific issues. Most small to medium sized room don't have broadband issues, they are usually very specific ones. These are definitely a street sweeper being used to do a fine painting. Next, these things take up a lot of real estate, and most folks don't want room treatments that take up a lot of space.

Next question was how did you measure it?

Let's repeat this for emphasis as well

Traps are for broadband issues, not for specific issues


If I don't have broadband issues, then I don't need traps.



No doubt. Room treatments for dummies!

Poor choice of words, but par for the course though.


Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! Let's repeat that for clarity since that has been my point to Pix all along:

This is not to say that Audyssey can replace room treatment in every installation...

Please do not cherry pick my words. These words should be added as well.

but in some cases it is more effective than room treatment products..



Ok, but... It cannot fix a boundary problem while leaving the middle of the room "untreated" as you suggested earlier.

If you don't sit near boundaries, why do you need to fix a problem there? Most folks put their listening positions near the center of rooms, not in corners, and not near side or rear walls. RED HERRING or lack of understanding of small room acoustics. You fix issues where you sit.



Each speaker is given its own EQ profile and it radiates that signal uniformly into the room. The equalized signal cannot magically *stop* in the middle of the room!

Wrong! Each POSITION is given its own EQ profile, not the speaker. Ralph, you still do not understand how Audyssey works.



Frequency response, yes. Solving random image reflections which affects only one side of a speaker's response requires different solutions.

The direct output and the random reflections are picked up by the Audyssey microphone, all are included with the processing. The process not only uses amplitude, it also uses time as well. This is how it recognizes the direct output versus the reflections that arrive later. If you absorb all random reflections, you lose spaciousness. This is why room treatments should be used sparingly, if at all.

Audyssey does not EQ speakers. It EQ's the mix of the speakers direct and reflected output. That includes a left and right speakers located near walls.


The end result is that the speakers are sent an amplified signal containing the *corrected* profile.

rw

You still don't know how it works. Audyssey does not EQ listening positions that do not need it. So if the left side of the couch produces a measurement with a rising response(because it is closer to the walls), and the primary listening position is virtually flat, it will produce a result where the left side of the couch's frequency response is the same as the center of the couch. It corrects frequency abnormalities where they are, not were they are not.

E-Stat
04-21-2011, 02:42 PM
The largest trap effects all frequencies equally between 40-400hz.
I'm delighted you returned to your first story. The acoustic coefficient of the ASC traps is not consistent across three octaves as you suggest. Look again at the data.


Traps are for broadband issues, not for specific issues.
Ok.


Next, these things take up a lot of real estate, and most folks don't want room treatments that take up a lot of space.
Yep.


If I don't have broadband issues, then I don't need traps.
Ok.



Bass traps are not necessary in every room
Ok



Wrong! Each POSITION is given its own EQ profile, not the speaker.
So how does a single speaker deliver a different EQ profile at four different places in the room? You continue to dodge answering the question. Regardless of how many samples are figured into the averaged response, you still have a limited number of output devices (speakers) to deliver the correction.



If you absorb all random reflections, you lose spaciousness. This is why room treatments should be used sparingly, if at all.
Ok.


it will produce a result where the left side of the couch's frequency response is the same as the center of the couch. It corrects frequency abnormalities where they are, not were they are not.
Duplicate observation as two above. Still waiting for your answer as to how a single speaker's frequency output is changed from one distance to another via equalization.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-21-2011, 02:54 PM
I'm delighted you returned to your first story. The acoustic coefficient of the ASC traps is not consistent across three octaves as you suggest. Look again at the data.

It does not matter if it is consistent or not. It still effects frequencies in a broadband manner, which makes it quite an imprecise tool. Audyssey is also a broadband tool, but it has flexibility and precision.






So how does a single speaker deliver a different EQ profile at four different places in the room? You continue to dodge answering the question. Regardless of how many samples are figured into the averaged response, you still have a limited number of output devices (speakers) to deliver the correction.

Its called spatial averaging.







Duplicate observation as two above. Still waiting for your answer as to how a single speaker's frequency output is changed from one distance to another via equalization.

rw

See above.

E-Stat
04-21-2011, 03:00 PM
It does not matter if it is consistent or not.
Fine. I'll disregard your previous statement ("The largest trap effects all frequencies equally between 40-400hz.") where you claimed it was.


Its called spatial averaging.
Fine. I'll disregard your previous statement ("Each POSITION is given its own EQ profile, not the speaker. ") Each position gets the same "spatially averaged" correction.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-22-2011, 08:47 AM
Fine. I'll disregard your previous statement ("The largest trap effects all frequencies equally between 40-400hz.") where you claimed it was.

You can disregard my statement, and I'll disregard your supposed knowledge of what Audyssey does.



Fine. I'll disregard your previous statement ("Each POSITION is given its own EQ profile, not the speaker. ") Each position gets the same "spatially averaged" correction.

rw

The correct wording would be "each position is EQ'd to attain a flat response from each speaker". Your word "angling" is pretty pathetic.

E-Stat
04-22-2011, 09:08 AM
The correct wording would be "each position is EQ'd to attain a flat response from each speaker". .
Once again, you were correct the first time around with the obvious explanation of how it works - it averages the data taken from different points and sends that single signal to each speaker. Seven speakers cannot simultaneously deliver thirty two different equalization profiles. Drinking too much of their Kool-Aid has impaired your ability to reason logically.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-22-2011, 11:44 AM
Once again, you were correct the first time around with the obvious explanation of how it works - it averages the data taken from different points and sends that single signal to each speaker. Seven speakers cannot simultaneously deliver thirty two different equalization profiles. Drinking too much of their Kool-Aid has impaired your ability to reason logically.

rw

Since we have established that you don't know what you are talking about, you can move on now.

pixelthis
04-22-2011, 12:11 PM
I call this the "turntable" effect.
Humans sometimes hate something new, especially something that makes their old endeavor look like a waste of time.
I ONLY use two positions to get a profile because I figured the more positions, the more
averaging the program would have to do in writing its profile.
HERE is what Stat doesn't "get". THE SIMPLE FACT that everything between speaker
and pickup mic is absolutely irrelevant. THE PROGRAM will take the signal and fix it.
EASY PLEASY LEMON SQUEEZY.
Anti nuke activists hate nuclear power because they don't understand how power just
magically comes outta a rock. TURNTABLE fanatics fail to understand the process
by which music is converted to ones and zeros and back, and concentrate on minutiae
in the process that only a GERMAN SHEPARD COULD HEAR.
Audyssey has as much to do with traditional e.q as a space shuttle has to do with a CESSNA 150. If the drapery crowd has this much trouble understanding it, I can't wait until a dynamic system with permanent mics comes along.
GONNA FRY THEIR LITTLE BRAINS.:1:

E-Stat
04-22-2011, 12:26 PM
Since we have established that you don't know what you are talking about, you can move on now.
For some reason, I have more confidence in your ability to understand logic and reject impossible claims than do you. Let's review Audyssey's explanation as to how it arrives at The EQ filter applied to each speaker:

"MultEQ looks at patterns in the time domain responses and classifies them into clusters based on the similarities in those patterns, typically in 3-5 groups. A representative response is created from each cluster, and a final response is then created from grouping the representatives. That response is then used to create The EQ filter."

Sure, groups are analyzed, weighted and evaluated. Each group creates its own response which later results in a final response used to create The EQ filter assigned to each speaker. The Filter. It. Uno. One per speaker. One possible way for each speaker to influence the soundfield. Asserting that seven (or eight) speakers delivers a unique and specifically directed output to thirty two different places in the room defies logic and reason. You're a recording engineer and don't understand what they're saying?

FAQs (https://www.audyssey.com/technology/faq.html#faq_multeq)

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-24-2011, 08:07 AM
For some reason, I have more confidence in your ability to understand logic and reject impossible claims than do you. Let's review Audyssey's explanation as to how it arrives at The EQ filter applied to each speaker:

"MultEQ looks at patterns in the time domain responses and classifies them into clusters based on the similarities in those patterns, typically in 3-5 groups. A representative response is created from each cluster, and a final response is then created from grouping the representatives. That response is then used to create The EQ filter."

Sure, groups are analyzed, weighted and evaluated. Each group creates its own response which later results in a final response used to create The EQ filter assigned to each speaker. The Filter. It. Uno. One per speaker. One possible way for each speaker to influence the soundfield. Asserting that seven (or eight) speakers delivers a unique and specifically directed output to thirty two different places in the room defies logic and reason. You're a recording engineer and don't understand what they're saying?

FAQs (https://www.audyssey.com/technology/faq.html#faq_multeq)

rw

Can you read?

I said this didn't I

The correct wording would be "each position is EQ'd to attain a flat response from each speaker".

Now what part of this don't you understand? You can understand English can't you?

I don't know why you are trying to explain something I already know, maybe you should be explaining this to yourself.

First, I never said anywhere in this thread that one speaker spits out 32 different profiles. I said that you can measure 32 different points, not get 32 different profiles out of one speaker.

E-Stat
04-24-2011, 10:52 AM
Can you read?
Perfectly well. I continue to quote your words.

The correct wording would be "each position is EQ'd to attain a flat response from each speaker".

Clearly from their description, that is not what happens. It is true that each position is initially weighted during the analysis, but there is only one EQ calculated for the sum of all groups.

Audyssey does not EQ listening positions that do not need it.

Since each and every position gets the very same averaged EQ Filter, your statement is patently ridiculous. The sound produced from the speaker is not like a Cruise Missile where it can selectively target individual places in the room and not others. Every place in the room gets the same averaged correction from each speaker ! Position A gets the same equalized signal as does position B as does position C as does position D, etc.

Sheesh!

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-24-2011, 12:32 PM
Perfectly well. I continue to quote your words.

The correct wording would be "each position is EQ'd to attain a flat response from each speaker".

Clearly from their description, that is not what happens. It is true that each position is initially weighted during the analysis, but there is only one EQ calculated for the sum of all groups.

And that sum would be a flat or close to flat frequency curve at each seat, just like my words stated.



Audyssey does not EQ listening positions that do not need it.

Since each and every position gets the very same averaged EQ Filter, your statement is patently ridiculous. The sound produced from the speaker is not like a Cruise Missile where it can selectively target individual places in the room and not others. Every place in the room gets the same averaged correction from each speaker ! Position A gets the same equalized signal as does position B as does position C as does position D, etc.

Sheesh!

rw

Ralph, you can see on the screen of your television set what equalization calculation that each measured position gets. So I know for a fact it does not apply equalization to places that already measure reasonably flat. The system would not be useful if it re-equalized a position that already meets the target curve. If you go through the process, you can see how it works. You keep quoting how MultiEQ pro works, but you have yet to make one point about MultiEQ XT32 pro works. Multi EQ XT32 pro has more filters, with more resolution, more horsepower which leads to the ability to provide finer calculations for those many more points. Unlike MultiEQ pro, it does not work in clusters, it works on individual positions. If position A falls into the target curve, it does not re-equalize that position.

E-Stat
04-24-2011, 01:33 PM
And that sum would be a flat or close to flat frequency curve at each seat, just like my words stated.
At one seat, perhaps. At another, not exactly given the averaging of all the individual points. Averaging multiple answers gives you good answers for all, but one most certainly CANNOT say that it only affects certain areas of the room. Such is impossible using seven speakers.


Ralph, you can see on the screen of your television set what equalization calculation that each measured position gets.
More specifically, the correction factor for each position. Which never is found at the output of the device. Instead, each is combined with all the others to provide a lump sum product. One answer for all positions. Ten positions. A thousand positions. Doesn't matter. You've only got one output! That is all that matters because the output signal never sends any one individual position's EQ. One speaker is incapable of sending ten unique signals as you continue to assert.


You keep quoting how MultiEQ pro works, but you have yet to make one point about MultiEQ XT32 pro works. Multi EQ XT32 pro has more filters, with more resolution, more horsepower which leads to the ability to provide finer calculations for those many more points.
And still results in a single correction applied via a single speaker to each and every position in the room. Smarter and better weighting factors for sure. In the end, one solution. The only possible way to deliver position specific EQ is to provide position specific speakers! Comprende, senior?


Unlike MultiEQ pro, it does not work in clusters, it works on individual positions. If position A falls into the target curve, it does not re-equalize that position.
That provides a more accurate weighting factor which gets summed with all the other weighting factors. There remains, however, only one averaged output. There is only one summarized solution for the room.

While the application is different, I write software that uses various weighting factors to determine supply chain demand. Using standard deviation, you eliminate outlier values. You employ time based exponential smoothing to weight demand based upon multiple factors. You build in as much intelligence as you can to provide the best single result. Unquestionably, intelligently weighted systems work better than those using simple arithmetic averaging. They CANNOT, however, under any circumstance provide separate simultaneous solutions for different scenarios.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-24-2011, 03:29 PM
At one seat, perhaps. At another, not exactly given the averaging of all the individual points. Averaging multiple answers gives you good answers for all, but one most certainly CANNOT say that it only affects certain areas of the room. Such is impossible using seven speakers.

MultiEQ averages, XT32 pro equalizes each point after the measurement of the point is taken. Since each point will measure differently, each point is equalized differently. (Left speaker) Front row left seat, measured and equalized for flat. Center seat measured, equalized for flat. Right chair measured equalized for flat. Repeat for second row. Then we move to the center speaker, repeat process. When the system is done, each speaker will deliver a flat(or near flat) signal to each of the seats. XT32 corrects each point separately, and then sends the corrected output to the speaker.

Before I purchased all of the units I did, I tested Audyssey claims with B&K lab microphone, and my RTA. Did before and after measurements at each of my twelve seats. From each seat, I got a nearly flat measurement from each speaker just as Audyssey claims. The proof is in the pudding.



More specifically, the correction factor for each position. Which never is found at the output of the device. Instead, each is combined with all the others to provide a lump sum product. One answer for all positions.

You have just describe how MultiEQ and MultiEQ XT works, not XT32 pro


Ten positions.

Ten different equalization curves separately measured and equalized to match the reference curve = a flat response for all measured positions.


A thousand positions. Doesn't matter. You've only got one output! That is all that matters because the output signal never sends any one individual position's EQ. One speaker is incapable of sending ten unique signals as you continue to assert.

It does not have to send out ten unique signals, and I never said it did. All the system does is correct those ten position to match the target curve(flat). Once those ten measurements are corrected to the target, that equalized(flat or near flat) curve is what the speaker see's.



And still results in a single correction applied via a single speaker to each and every position in the room.

Nope. XT32 pro measures and corrects each positionSEPERATLY. The result of that is a flat curve to all seats from a single speaker. MultiEQ does the single curve.



Smarter and better weighting factors for sure. In the end, one solution. The only possible way to deliver position specific EQ is to provide position specific speakers! Comprende, senior?

Still wrong. You still do not get it. XT32 measures the reference position first. If that position meets its targeted curve, it applies no equalization to that position. You move the mike, take another measurement with the same speaker. If that measurement does not meet the targeted curve, it corrects that position frequency response so it matches position A. Rinse and repeat. At the end of the process, every seat matches the same curve as the reference seat.



That provides a more accurate weighting factor which gets summed with all the other weighting factors. There remains, however, only one averaged output. There is only one summarized solution for the room.

Wrong again. It does not apply the same equalization for my surround speakers that are close to a boundary, to the front speakers that are not. It applies a different set of equalization values for each position measured.


While the application is different, I write software that uses various weighting factors to determine supply chain demand. Using standard deviation, you eliminate outlier values. You employ time based exponential smoothing to weight demand based upon multiple factors. You build in as much intelligence as you can to provide the best single result. Unquestionably, intelligently weighted systems work better than those using simple arithmetic averaging. They CANNOT, however, under any circumstance provide separate simultaneous solutions for different scenarios.

rw

Ralph, I don't give a damn what you do, you did not write the software for Audyssey did you? NO, so your what you do for a living is irrelevant to what we are talking about here.

What seems pretty clear here is you don't understand the difference between MultiEQ, and MultiEQ XT32 pro. They very clearly don't work the same way because MultiEQ does not have the horsepower to do so. Certain things are done differently because of this. MultiEQ cannot equalize surround arrays(multiple speakers with the same output), XT 32 pro can. MultiEQ cannot be used with full range speakers(you must have a 80hz crossover point from subs to mains), XT 32 Pro can. MultiEQ cannot provide individual corrections for individual points, XT 32 Pro can. MultiEQ, MultiEQ XT are found in receivers and processors, MultiEQ XT32 PRO can only be found as a standalone directly from Audyssey. MultiEQ XT32 PRO requires a laptop computer, MultiEQ and MultiEQ XT does not. MultiEQ XT32 pro can provide different EQ values to two or more subwoofers, MultiEQ and XT cannot.

Lots of difference between the two, and since you have no experience with any of them, your assumptions and conclusions should be taken with a bag of salt.
.

E-Stat
04-24-2011, 06:00 PM
From each seat, I got a nearly flat measurement from each speaker just as Audyssey claims. The proof is in the pudding.
I bow to the power of a single equalization curve.

rw