Jump to content

How many here turn off Audyssey


robc1976
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, derrickdj1 said:

 

One thing I did back in 2011 was get a top model from each major brand from BB magnolia and kept it for 3 close to 4 weeks before returning it.  This gave me a short time to see what Auddysee, YAPO, and MCACC where all about.

 

x2 

 

this is seriously the way to do it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ACV92 said:

I was looking at a proposed purchase of a Pioneer Elite SC-LX501 by a poster in another thread.  When reviewing the specs, specifically to calibration, I noticed that this receiver has an EQ built in to where you can customize 9 preset bands for each channel in a multi channel setup.  There were 4 bands for the sub.  Has the EQ feature been available on previous MCACC equipped units, or is this a newer trend?  It seems to me that adding this capability is recognition of deficiencies within the auto calibration software.  I'm behind the curve here, I've no experience with any auto calibration AVR's but consider this useful info for the future.

 

think about this and it will answer your own question.

 

calibrated to whom? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chris A said:

Actually, if you read it again, I believe that you'd see that I agree to disagree on this point: there is no difference between a good multichannel system and a good two-channel system. 

 

If you think about it, PWK was perhaps the first to strongly advocate for multichannel, but in his case three-channel with two Khorns and a La Scala or Belle in the middle.  Since there weren't 3-channel recordings available then, he devised a bridged center box that could be used with his loudspeakers, but actually, he advocated to three channel long before it was a cool thing to do.

 

YMMV.

 

Chris

 

x2

 

you have time alignment to deal with on multi channel but really. sound is sound. i completely agree with chris here. a good multi channel should eliminate or reduce dead spots in a room, not be sonically different than a good 2ch. some people may possible confuse that fill with a different sound maybe? granted it will register a bit different to the brain 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried Audyssey on, off, flat and whichever that other option is and I feel each one has a flaw that I don't like.   I usually just go pure direct mode, but I only have a JBL  ES250P sub and it just doesn't sound good with my Chorus II for music(I've tried it crossed over at 80, 60 and 40hz).  Prefer the tight natural bass of the Chorus II on their own. I'm new to all of this so I am still contemplating getting smaller bookshelf speakers to use as L/R in movies with the Marantz SR7007 and just use the Chorus II as stereo with some vintage equipment.  But, like is said, i'm new to all of this and I don't know how much of a hassle it is to own and have to service vintage stereos or replace tubes if I went the tube route. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a lot of disparate opinions.  Some love it, some hate it.  I love it.

 

I have the mid-level Audyssey in my Onk 717 AVR.  No auto eq and no sub eq.

 

I like it because it makes all my mismatched speakers play nice together.  I have Khorns L/R, MTM dome tweeter Center and dome tweeter bi-poles for the side surrounds which are placed in the wrong position due to room irregularities.

 

No matter how bad I screw up the sound with the erroneous idea I am smarter than Audyssey, she is always patient and kind and restores order to a GREAT sound, every time.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Chris A said:

 

...I have one question:  If you're listening to multichannel music recordings at home, etc., what do you use to set up your multichannel music system?  Is it the same as your "home theater" system? ...

 

 

 

 

I think Audyssey sounds good with multichannel music (in my room, with my speakers, etc.), providing one doesn't use DEQ.  Unfortunately DEQ is often the default setting.  Although DEQ always sounds a little bad to me, it sounds especially bad with music only sources.  My hypothesis is that this is because there is no standardized Reference Level with music recording.  My favorite settings for almost any source are: Audyssey ON, DEQ OFF, Audyssey Flat, sub boosted, tone controls to taste (almost never use the treble control), Volume control to taste (but at nearly "live" levels), calibration having been done with all 8 mic positions, all at ear level, in my medium/large treated room.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Chris A said:

 

...I have one question:  If you're listening to multichannel music recordings at home, etc., what do you use to set up your multichannel music system?  Is it the same as your "home theater" system? ...

 

 

 

 

I think Audyssey sounds good with multichannel music (in my room, with my speakers, etc.), providing one doesn't use DEQ.  Unfortunately DEQ is often the default setting.  Although DEQ always sounds a little bad to me, it sounds especially bad with music only sources.  My hypothesis is that this is because there is no standardized Reference Level with music recording.  My favorite settings for almost any source are: Audyssey ON, DEQ OFF, Audyssey Flat, sub boosted, tone controls to taste (almost never use the treble control), Volume control to taste (but at nearly "live" levels), calibration having been done with all 8 mic positions, all at ear level, in my medium/large treated room.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Chris A said:

 

...I have one question:  If you're listening to multichannel music recordings at home, etc., what do you use to set up your multichannel music system?  Is it the same as your "home theater" system? ...

 

 

 

 

I think Audyssey sounds good with multichannel music (in my room, with my speakers, etc.), providing one doesn't use DEQ.  Unfortunately DEQ is often the default setting.  Although DEQ always sounds a little bad to me, it sounds especially bad with music only sources.  My hypothesis is that this is because there is no standardized Reference Level with music recording.  My favorite settings for almost any source are: Audyssey ON, DEQ OFF, Audyssey Flat, sub boosted, tone controls to taste (almost never use the treble control), Volume control to taste (but at nearly "live" levels), calibration having been done with all 8 mic positions, all at ear level, in my medium/large treated room.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Chris A said:

 

...I have one question:  If you're listening to multichannel music recordings at home, etc., what do you use to set up your multichannel music system?  Is it the same as your "home theater" system? ...

 

 

 

 

I think Audyssey sounds good with multichannel music (in my room, with my speakers, etc.), providing one doesn't use DEQ.  Unfortunately DEQ is often the default setting.  Although DEQ always sounds a little bad to me, it sounds especially bad with music only sources.  My hypothesis is that this is because there is no standardized Reference Level with music recording.  My favorite settings for almost any source are: Audyssey ON, DEQ OFF, Audyssey Flat, sub boosted, tone controls to taste (almost never use the treble control), Volume control to taste (but at nearly "live" levels), calibration having been done with all 8 mic positions, all at ear level, in my medium/large treated room.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my family room HT/music rig, Audyssey curve on for movies, Audyssey "NAD" curve on for music.  No bass tone boost for either, treble tone boost +2dB for both and dialog tone boost +6dB for movies.  I may pump up subwoofers a dB or two for movies if soundtrack is a bit flat.  DEQ off always.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, garyrc said:

I think Audyssey sounds good with multichannel music (in my room, with my speakers, etc.)

Wow, the system duplicated your post FOUR times!  I think that's the record. 

 

I gave a "Like" to all four posts because I agreed with you every time I read them.  :emotion-21::emotion-21::emotion-21::emotion-21:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Chris A said:

That was one of the nicest rebuttals that I've ever read, and I have to thank you for the manner in which it was delivered.  it was very well written.

 

I have one question:  If you're listening to multichannel music recordings at home, etc., what do you use to set up your multichannel music system?  Is it the same as your "home theater" system? 

 

I suggest that the standard for home theater performance presented just above (i.e., Audyssey, etc.) is a little too low for my listening tastes.  It also makes a great deal of difference for movies, too. You can't believe the realism in performance that the sound system can bring for movies with extremely good soundtracks.

 

I will say that a 5.1 is much more challenging to set up with the personal standard that I mentioned than a good 2-channel system.  But it has been one of the most rewarding experiences in terms of the breathtaking performances of multichannel music that I've ever heard.  I never believed that home sound reproduction could be that good (ref: Mariss Jansons and the Bavarian Radio Symphony performances of the Beethoven nine symphonies in Japan on Blu-Ray).  They're simply breathtaking.  I've experienced nothing like that in stereo--ever--even switching to stereo on the same multichannel discs.

 

For me, there has never been any difference between 2-channel and multichannel in terms of quality of components, setup and performance.  I would recommend using whatever you'd use for 2-channel to achieve the same (or actually higher) level of performance. 

 

This does, however, explain to me why people are using two rooms of their homes for sound reproduction instead of just one, good room.  However, I mostly stopped going to commercial cinemas locally because the quality of the sound systems are inferior to that which I listen to at home--especially those commercial cinema systems with "JBL" emblems on them of late-for reasons that I don't really understand except maybe the economics of doing it better.  The local Klipsch-powered cinema sounds much better, but the lack of sufficient deep subwoofer capability--well below 40 Hz--is usually very obvious and I assume this was an economic decision by AMC.  The big screens of are nice but are not nearly nice enough to offset the assault on my eardrums by the really rough commercial cinema systems that I mentioned (JBL systems, that is).

 

So, in summary, to have two different standards for music and home theater presented above...but that doesn't really compute for me. 

 

But that's my viewpoint only.  YMMV.

 

Chris

 

 

I think what you said is what Dennis is suggesting...if you have 2 channel to listen to, listen in a 2 channel setup, if you have multichannel to listen to -- either music or movies/shows, then use the home theater.  So you were fully understanding his view with this.  

 

I think an important consideration is of course the "level" at which we are creating our rooms.  Dennis is creating THX-certified theaters that cost anywhere from $50k to a million or more.  So his standard is so high clearly someone in his position is used to "the best."

 

Likewise I think you are in an elevated category too.  How many people have really bothered to learn how to calibrate each channel themselves?  Or course there were great theaters and sound rooms well before Audyssey existed.  So there's no debate really imo about whether or not you can do BETTER than Audyssey.  I believe you could.

 

And as such, you put in enough hours and eventually landed where you're very happy with the result no matter what is being listened to.  Again I agree here.  You have to remember that to the average person that would come into your home, the setup you have is far beyond anything they are used to for music or movies.  So they would be blown away with either.  Dennis may be a lot more picky in your room!  

 

The average person out there has many miles to go before they have a "great" room.   The weakest link theory applies here more than anything...spend a fortune on any one element of your setup and ignore an important part...and you cannot overcome the weakest link of your system no matter how much you spend.

 

Think how many people actually have any sort of room treatments.  Even just the first reflection points of the fronts.  Not many.  So someone can run Audyssey 500x and possibly never achieve what they want -- because the weakest link is not Audyssey, their AVR or the speakers -- it is the room itself.  There is no fudging the room and overcoming it.  There's only making the best of it, imo.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, racebum said:

 

if you tune for music HT often sounds just fine unless you like the exaggerated fake movie theater sounds 

 

when i step on my back porch and hear birds sing...that's why i want my stereo to do if birds are on a cd

 

if i go to a live performance where instruments are being played. that's what i want my stereo to do when i play said instruments

 

modern HT systems have no dynamics, almost none. the fine detail is missing. it's a very processed sound.

 

i would gladly take a pair of b&w  803 d3's on a krell class A over any multi channel HT system i could think of. i'm going to get  a more life like sound from quality than i will processed effects chips 

 

my point being...really....you have to ask what the standard is before you decide if your comment is actually true

 

ps...if anyone wants a REAL challenge, try getting car audio right with what's currently on the market today and not going broke buying exotic items 

 

My take is with multichannel, you have speakers pointing in most if not all directions.  The reflections become a bigger problem and in any given room, the only way to tame that is generally to treat it.  The bigger the room the easier that becomes...take it outside with the real world and the birds will sound their best, so will bass and most everything else.

 

Now treat the room significantly and the multiple channels are all tamed and work well together.  That detail IS there, but only can be heard when the room reflections are tamed enough to really hear them.  Treat the room that much, and then listen to 2 channel music...and it may not sound as good.  There's a lot of treatment and the natural reflections we are all used to in 2 channel music are missing.

 

The final point about what is the reference is absolutely the key, and why I never try to criticize anyone for whatever they do.  Especially when it comes to music, who can tell anyone else what they like?  

 

This thread ended up being one of the more intersting discussions in a long while! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, RoboKlipsch said:

Dennis is creating THX-certified theaters that cost anywhere from $50k to a million or more.  So his standard is so high clearly someone in his position is used to "the best."

 

First, one of the reasons why I spend a fair amount of my time here on the forum with FAQs, etc. on this subject and related subjects is to bring the availability of hi-fi music multichannel setups to more people without implied high dollar price tags.  I'm an engineer, so as such I'm into cost effectiveness and much less into BS for the sake of wildly increased profit margins (i.e., avoiding the typical "audiophile marketing" disease).  This subject is near and dear: high performance hi-fi multichannel music at affordable prices for "the remaining 99.9%" with reproduction performance that exceeds most commercial movie theaters.  That's easily attainable--but probably not from your typical local home theater dealer, at least affordably.  The first thing is to get the relative price of the pieces of the system under control and to use your head and your own abilities to save significant bucks.  There's a lot of real BS out there (just like PWK used to talk about). 

 

Second, the main reason for my commenting on the concept of "default lower quality home theater sound" is to point out that hi-fi multichannel isn't any different than hi-fi two-channel, only that channel gains and time delays usually have to be set, as well as set-up of the loudspeakers around the main listening position to achieve reasonable acoustic performance. 

 

The concept of "home theater doesn't have to be as good" is the idea that I'm specifically rebutting, as I find the opposite is true: home theater needs to be better than typical two-channel setups.  The reason is the tacit requirement for seamless integration of coverage (L,C,R, surrounds, and subwoofer integration), and timbre matching between channels--all the way around. You're not going to get that solely from a push-the-button firmware application.  It takes a little bit more knowledge and effort than pushing a button and tweaking the resulting EQ.

 

Chris

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RoboKlipsch said:

My take is with multichannel, you have speakers pointing in most if not all directions.  The reflections become a bigger problem and in any given room, the only way to tame that is generally to treat it.  The bigger the room the easier that becomes...take it outside with the real world and the birds will sound their best, so will bass and most everything else.

 

Now treat the room significantly and the multiple channels are all tamed and work well together.  That detail IS there, but only can be heard when the room reflections are tamed enough to really hear them.  Treat the room that much, and then listen to 2 channel music...and it may not sound as good.  There's a lot of treatment and the natural reflections we are all used to in 2 channel music are missing.

 

The final point about what is the reference is absolutely the key, and why I never try to criticize anyone for whatever they do.  Especially when it comes to music, who can tell anyone else what they like?  

 

This thread ended up being one of the more intersting discussions in a long while! 

i agree. some of the sounds that can be missing can be traced back to the source material. room reflection as you point out, the room playing along with the tones which is yet another or the actual gear. i'm not 100% sure i can hear 20khz anymore but i can hear 16khz and there are various sounds in that region that some pre amps like the roll off. this is usually not a problem with real hi fi gear but can be with receivers and with car audio. recently i decided to start upgrading the stereo in my 4runner. amps and speakers from morel and JL audio. decent stuff. the pre amp though aka deck. could never get a pioneer nex to sound right. moved to higher end alpine. the magic happened. completely different sound. detail was back. reflections are just terrible in car audio and in general it's much harder to get to sound correct than home. what was interesting is the massive change the pre amp made. the end point with this story of course is when you're doing 2ch, 5ch, 7ch in a home you do definitely need to consider all angles. the room, time correction, the gear etc. sometimes one piece of the puzzle is what's bothering you and it may not be what you think it was.  last month before i started this project i would have never guessed the pre amp could have this drastic of an impact on a system,.

 

oh...that reminds me of something. have you guys came up with any ideas to help break up standing waves and reflections with hard rooms? hickory floors, low amounts of furniture? sometimes people have wild ideas i have not considered and one area of my home has more trouble than it should simply because it's an echo chamber. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, racebum said:

 

oh...that reminds me of something. have you guys came up with any ideas to help break up standing waves and reflections with hard rooms?

Area rugs are obvious for a partial answer, something to put down in front of the speakers.  I like curtains to break up echo, those long hanging ones that insulate or keep out light are which are very heavy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, wvu80 said:

Wow, the system duplicated your post FOUR times!  I think that's the record. 

 

I gave a "Like" to all four posts because I agreed with you every time I read them.  :emotion-21::emotion-21::emotion-21::emotion-21:

Who can tell me how to get rid of the duplicates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, racebum said:

 

 

... oh...that reminds me of something. have you guys came up with any ideas to help break up standing waves and reflections with hard rooms? hickory floors, low amounts of furniture? sometimes people have wild ideas i have not considered and one area of my home has more trouble than it should simply because it's an echo chamber. 

  • Reflections: absorbers, diffusers, book shelves with open ends with diffusing pottery and absorbing books, area rugs, thick velour curtains, etc.

 

  • Standing waves: (tuned) bass traps, after a room mode analysis.

 

  • Audyssey may help some with both.  Don't give Audyssey too much work to do; treat the room first.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...