Audyssey odessey

[pixelthis]

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.

[E-Stat]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[pixelthis]

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 .

[bobsticks]

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]

[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]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.

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.

[Feanor]

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]

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]

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.