Jump to content

How many here turn off Audyssey


robc1976
 Share

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, garyrc said:
  • 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.

100% correct, treating my room made the biggest difference. I just don't like what audyysey does to my sound anymore. It sounded good, but much better off and tweaks with tone controls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, robc1976 said:

100% correct, treating my room made the biggest difference. I just don't like what audyysey does to my sound anymore. It sounded good, but much better off and tweaks with tone controls.

What happens when you use Audyssey tone controls?  I don't mean the virtual sliders, which usually can't be used with Audyssey, but the true tone controls which can only be used with DEQ off.  In my room, starting with something that is comparatively flat (Audyssey), then tweaking with the true tone controls, to manipulate a smooth, rather than a kinky, curve works well.  In fact, it works better than the extremely versatile tone controls I used to have on my old Luxman (a choice of three turnover points for each tone control, plus a low boost or cut switch at 70 Hz or 140 Hz).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, garyrc said:

What happens when you use Audyssey tone controls?  I don't mean the virtual sliders, which usually can't be used with Audyssey, but the true tone controls which can only be used with DEQ off.  In my room, starting with something that is comparatively flat (Audyssey), then tweaking with the true tone controls, to manipulate a smooth, rather than a kinky, curve works well.  In fact, it works better than the extremely versatile tone controls I used to have on my old Luxman (a choice of three turnover points for each tone control, plus a low boost or cut switch at 70 Hz or 140 Hz)Yep, those are the tone controls I am referring to.

 

I have mine set at +2Db bass & -1db treble and this sounds amazing. Tried multiple other settings but this seems to be sweet spot for my room.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

It seems to me that adding this capability is recognition of deficiencies within the auto calibration software.

 

On 4/11/2017 at 5:46 PM, racebum said:

think about this and it will answer your own question.

 

calibrated to whom? 

Connecting dots that aren't there, really. MCACC software allows the owner to actually see what their system is doing, before and after. Has auto settings sure, but can also accommodate adjustment once the data has been analyzed. All, without requiring the use of a stand-alone computer.

 

Make of it what you will. Some people can run with it. For others, the features gather dust.

 

Anytime DSP is involved, the potential exists for the sound to fall to either extreme, good or bad. It's all in the hands of the operator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Quiet_Hollow said:

 

Connecting dots that aren't there, really. MCACC software allows the owner to actually see what their system is doing, before and after. Has auto settings sure, but can also accommodate adjustment once the data has been analyzed. All, without requiring the use of a stand-alone computer.

 

Make of it what you will. Some people can run with it. For others, the features gather dust.

 

Anytime DSP is involved, the potential exists for the sound to fall to either extreme, good or bad. It's all in the hands of the operator.

 

what is fail? what is good or bad? 

 

like i said....calibrated to whom?

 

i also do not believe it's in the hands of the operator even though that is a substantial part. some amplifiers and pre amps just have a sound i do not like. pioneers car audio decks come to mind. i really don't like any of them. not sure about home audio. some of their older high end stuff was really good. i haven't had a chance to play with a modern elite yet as i get great deals on marantz which has kind of married me to the brand. i paid $450 for a new sr5011 for example. hard to look elsewhere at those deals. it sounds good though. audyseey has a major shortfall with it's automatic in the box approach to sound. you either like what some engineer thought up or you don't. you can't alter the sound at all without turning it off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for their newer AVRs, Audyssey has released a phone app which allows the user to adjust the target curve.

that does not solve everything, as the program still can't resolve every problem in a room

but it does fix the #1 complaint of Audyssey, that unless you have the Pro package you could not adjust the target curve.

 

So now those that don't like a flat response curve for any reason can adjust to suit their room or taste.

This option provides another tool for the question above about tone control...say Audyssey can't get 500hz where you want it, now you can at least target a higher or lower range than flat and see if that helps too

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to share a tip I have learned recently from reading a lot over at gearslutz, where most of them are working to develop control-room/recording room setups.

They are incredibly sensitive to their setups because they have people coming in to record music or voice or both.  They want great response.

 

Their #1 tip - actually almost a requirement to help someone with their rooms and measurements is simple --  They must:

 

Take a measurement for the left speaker

Take a separate one for the right speaker

Then take a measurement for both

 

This may seem simple but in all reality, THIS tip will really help you get your autocorrection to improve.

When Audyssey (and most autocorrection) is running, it is attempting to optimize each SPEAKER separately.  

 

If you investigate what the left channel is doing, by itself, at each listening position, you can find out if the problems with that speaker are mostly common -- something that autocorrection can improve a lot - or if they are disparate - and therefore the autocorrect is left unable to optimize because a change will make other measurements a lot worse.

 

So the trick, as I see it, is to try and get each channel to have a consistent response, even if not perfect.  So let's say your left channel dips around 150hz.  If it does that at most or all of the listening positions, that problem in the left channel can and will be corrected.

 

So this can lead you, if you have the interest and time, to find a placement position that allows you to best correct for all the listening positions.  Or at a minimum, understand why it CAN'T fix the issues.  This for me was a real revelation.  Correcting response from two speakers is very hard looking at their sum.  Looking at the individual measurements you can quickly determine which speaker is causing issues, and try moving it to a better position that minimizes the problem -- or, if not possible, makes the problem common across as many seats as possible.   We can spend forever on sub placement but just throw up the mains in a spot...even though placement of the mains is about as important as sub placement.  

 

Left Speaker before Audyssey (average of 8 measurements it takes at same positions (I'll spare you all 8 measurements):

58f8e7722d690_LeftSpeakerBeforeAudyssey.jpg.86f8476a9ecf40c98c9463ce49edfd5a.jpg

 

 

And here's the left channel after Audyssey.  The average of the same 8 measurements.

58f8e7850f230_LeftSpeakerAfterAudyssey.jpg.74a670203b6519fb2ced469f330105fe.jpg

 

Of course, at each of the 8 measurements, it is not perfectly flat, and at many not close.  But the point I make above applies about measuring a channel.

Once I found a position that had similar issues, it made correction much easier.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RoboKlipsch said:

Take a measurement for the left speaker

Take a separate one for the right speaker

Then take a measurement for both

Audyssey measures each speaker separately, one at a time, and applies individual EQ to each one of them, as well as time domain correction.  The one thing it doesn't do is to measure two or more speakers operating simultaneously.  If we were setting up a mono system, using two speakers, the interaction of those two speakers, when measured while both are playing the same test signals, would be very important, I'd think.  Since we are playing stereo, with each speaker getting a different signal, I'm not so sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to come down on Auddysee but, it seems this correction system has some undesirable features.  It does not seem to be state of the art for most users.  Just having to turn it off defeats most of the purpose for a correction system.  I still don't quit get why so many want it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, derrickdj1 said:

I don't mean to come down on Auddysee but, it seems this correction system has some undesirable features.  It does not seem to be state of the art for most users.  Just having to turn it off defeats most of the purpose for a correction system.  I still don't quit get why so many want it.

I got my Audyssey room correction quite by accident, but fell in love with it.  I bought a pre/pro with no thought to room correction.  I ran the pre/pro without setting up Audyssey for, maybe, 3 months.  I the read about it extensively before trying to calibrate.  Included in that reading was "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here" which I now consider essential to good Audyssey set-up.  It tipped me off that the one complaint most people have about Audyssey is that after calibration there doesn't seem to be enough bass.  There are many explanations for this, but the essential fact is that it is easy to fix by turning up the sub a little, and perhaps turning up the front channel bass control a bit.  My results were wonderful!  the midrange and treble are much clearer and transparent sounding, and the bass is smoother.  I never use DEQ, because it seems to degrade the sound (athough some people love it).  I suspect that those with speakers as revealing as Klipsch are not going to like DEQ, but it isn't at all essential to benefiting from using Audyssey.  Some AVRs have DEQ as a default when using Audyssey, and I fear some users judge Audyssey only with DEQ engaged..  That would be a mistake, IMO.

 

 

 

 


  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, garyrc said:

I got my Audyssey room correction quite by accident, but fell in love with it.  I bought a pre/pro with no thought to room correction.  I ran the pre/pro without setting up Audyssey for, maybe, 3 months.  I the read about it extensively before trying to calibrate.  Included in that reading was "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here" which I now consider essential to good Audyssey set-up.  It tipped me off that the one complaint most people have about Audyssey is that after calibration there doesn't seem to be enough bass.  There are many explanations for this, but the essential fact is that it is easy to fix by turning up the sub a little, and perhaps turning up the front channel bass control a bit.  My results were wonderful!  the midrange and treble are much clearer and transparent sounding, and the bass is smoother.  I never use DEQ, because it seems to degrade the sound (athough some people love it).  I suspect that those with speakers as revealing as Klipsch are not going to like DEQ, but it isn't at all essential to benefiting from using Audyssey.  Some AVRs have DEQ as a default when using Audyssey, and I fear some users judge Audyssey only with DEQ engaged..  That would be a mistake, IMO.

 

 

 

 


 

 

Gary, you make a good point on how well you know the autocalibration program.  This makes a huge difference and can't be learned for new users without months of familiarizing yourself with the system, system gear and room.  Setup is much more complicated that just placing a mic.  Understanding what it did and did not do can make a world of difference.  You can't correct what you don't know or understand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Room correction software, either mcacc or audyssey, can make the 2 channel sound decent... good resolution, good detail, well balanced... it also sucks the life out of music.

 

To me it seems to flatten the image and air as far as my ear can tell.

 

For 5.1 and home theater it a different story.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Schu said:

Room correction software, either mcacc or audyssey, can make the 2 channel sound decent... good resolution, good detail, well balanced... it also sucks the life out of music.

 

To me it seems to flatten the image and air as far as my ear can tell.

 

For 5.1 and home theater it a different story.

Interesting.  I wonder if, by cutting down on time domain "problems," and reducing the ring down time, Audyssey also reduces complexity too much in some rooms.  There can be good sounding complexity (as in a room with lots of diffusion) and bad sounding complexity (superimposition of long monotonic ringing, etc.).  Either one can increase cortical arousal ("the life in music?").  Maybe some cues to imaging that reside in reverberation, are inadvertently reduced by Audyssey.  I haven't noticed the flattening of the image in my system/room.  If anything, there is more "air"  with Audyssey engaged, than with it switched out, in my moderately treated room.  YMMV. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another good point, a certain amount of reverb will makes the sound more live.   We live in a world where reverb is part of our natural environment. For those that like auto EQ off, try listening with it on.  It can be less fatiguing and after a period of adjustment, sound just as good.  I use to switch to Direct and Pure thinking it is the audiophile way to go.  Now, I leave EQ engaged and have adjusted to a more flat response and like it.  This is getting into the realm of preference and that is based on the individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Audyssey does provide more "air" when engaged listening to my Heresy's. While doing so, it seems to flatten the dynamics, and I think, make the Heresy's sound more like just any other speaker. To me they lose their "Klipschness". Yet without Audyssey, the Heresy's still provide a wide, spacious stereo image (and airiness) when the recording calls for it. Maybe Audyssey is "correct". Maybe not. My ears prefer what the Heresy's provide unadorned. Also, I think flattened frequency response correlates with flattened dynamics. Flattened dynamics sounds less like "real" to me. Which may be why PWK worried about flat frequency response only after efficiency, low distortion and controlled directivity?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^you're probably listening is some "surround sound" mode... compare 2 channel/stereo.

 

------------

 

"Life", as I describe it, is the element that is dimensional... the forward/backward, the hanging in the air at different points within the image.

 

That is independent of clarity and resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kevin S said:

Audyssey does provide more "air" when engaged listening to my Heresy's. While doing so, it seems to flatten the dynamics, and I think, make the Heresy's sound more like just any other speaker. To me they lose their "Klipschness". Yet without Audyssey, the Heresy's still provide a wide, spacious stereo image (and airiness) when the recording calls for it. Maybe Audyssey is "correct". Maybe not. My ears prefer what the Heresy's provide unadorned. Also, I think flattened frequency response correlates with flattened dynamics. Flattened dynamics sounds less like "real" to me. Which may be why PWK worried about flat frequency response only after efficiency, low distortion and controlled directivity?

I doubt that flattened frequency response correlates with flattened dynamics.  I'd guess that PWK put flat frequency response lower in importance because he valued low distortion much, much more.  I'd also guess that since most of us have a few peaks, especially bass peaks, in our speaker/room combination, when Audyssey removes them, there is the illusion of squashed dynamics because those peaks are no longer there.  This is easily overcome by boosting the subwoofer a bit, which virtually every user on the AVS Audyssey thread does, and perhaps boosting the bass with the front channel bass control a little.  I should say that this produces a smooth boost by virtue of Audyssey having smoothed the response before the boost, rather than the kinky boost that one would get if these things were done without Audyssey or a similar device.  Research at Harman and elsewhere indicates that most people prefer response that slopes up smoothly toward the bass end.  One good thing about Audyssey is that it calibrates your equipment and room to produce reference SPL at a main volume setting of 0.  THX has found that for a 5,000 cu. ft. room, a volume setting of 5 to 8 dB below reference produces the impression of reference volume, due to early reflections and other small room effects.  I run movies at 5 to 10 dB below reference, and they sound as dynamic as all get-out.  Unfortunately the music industry has no reference level standards, but I play music at a realistic SPL, and it sounds very dynamic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, garyrc said:

I doubt that flattened frequency response correlates with flattened dynamics...I'd also guess that since most of us have a few peaks, especially bass peaks, in our speaker/room combination, when Audyssey removes them, there is the illusion of squashed dynamics because those peaks are no longer there.  This is easily overcome by boosting the subwoofer a bit, which virtually every user on the AVS Audyssey thread does, and perhaps boosting the bass with the front channel bass control a little.

 

There are at least a couple of things going on here that make the above statements about "flat frequency response sounds flat" invalid, IMO:

 

1) None of your recordings are "flat".  In fact, I've spent a fair amount of time undoing un-flat recording frequency response.  Once this is done, all statements about "flat response sounds flat" disappear, mostly due to restoring the attenuation of the bass in the recordings, but also removal of the boosting of treble frequencies above ~2 Khz.  Almost all recordings have an "inverse loudness curve" mastered into them in order for them to sound louder.  Once this objectionable "mastering EQ" is removed, all statements about "flat frequency response sounds flat" are no longer valid.

 

2) In small rooms below the Schroeder frequency for the room, you're basically sitting in the near field of these frequencies wherever your listening position in-room happens to be.  At that point, the human hearing system becomes less and less efficient at converting low frequency energy into loudness perception because we are sitting too close to the source.  The typical listening response to this is to boost the low frequency response smoothly upwards toward the lowest perceptible frequencies.  These boost curves approximately follow the "equal loudness curve" profiles on the low frequency end of the spectrum:

 

ISO-KurvenANeu.gif\

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would submit this theory to being how Audyssey really works for most people --

 

If the average person who listens to music a lot, turned on Audyssey and calibrated it only at the MLP (whether 1 or 3 or 8 measurements), I would suggest that 90% of people would like the improvement.  It would simply EQ the response at that one spot and make it flat or close -- it has no restrictions in fixing that one measurement.  It may take a little while for your ears to get used to it, but arguing that flat is a bad starting point for reference seems suspect to me.  You have to start somewhere.  

 

There's a much much bigger challenge attempting to make multiple listening positions sound "good", and even harder to make the graphs look good.  

So when the average user turns on Audyssey and follows Audyssey's suggested pattern, the result can be, quite simply, mediocre.  

 

Garbage in...garbage out.  If the room doesn't support having a great sound at more than one place, then there's no way Audyssey can overcome that.

So a lot of time has to be spent figuring out how to make more than one measurement look and sound good.  For those with multiple row theaters, it's a particularly big challenge as one row is hard enough...two rows is inevitably a compromise.

 

In most cases there is some flexibility in speaker placement but not a lot.  Moreso people have the ability to treat their room -- or buy more subs, or whatever they believe will make the sound more consistent across the listening area.   And that is the key -- sure going up to the platinum audyssey may improve it a bit, but not as much as finding out exactly why the left seat, or right seat, or whichever seat...doesn't sound good with or without Audyssey.  

 

  • 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...