Audyssey odessey

[E-Stat]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[E-Stat]

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]

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]

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.

[pixelthis]

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.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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]

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]

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.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

You were correct the first time around when you said "most" room treatments. Large bass traps are effective below 80 hz. Look here. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[E-Stat]

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

rw