To Audyssey or not to Audyssey...Your Opinions?

[drummerboy_2002]

Originally Posted by Hillside Trece

Well...I think this is a bit debatable, depending on who you talk to...

How can you make a claim that Audyssey adjusts parameters within an AVR that allows the end user to "hear what was meant to be heard" when you don't even have a piece of gear that includes this system?

Audyssey is just a branding of a system that is included is some form or another in most decent AVR's these days. I don't specifically need Audyssey in order to understand it's purpose. If the goal were simply to allow the user to tweek the audio to his/her preference, it would have given them a multi-band EQ to adjust to their hearts content, and that's all. Given that it uses test tones and a mic, that tells me that it's adjusting for in-room responce, raising and lowering the frequency responce to more closely match the source. It's not a huge leap.

[Hillside Trece]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

Suit yourself!

Damn man...calm down a little...

You should reread your own posts!

Really? Did he not reply with a comment about "two channel applications" when I mentioned 2EQ? That, to me, makes me believe that he felt 2EQ was geared towards stereo applications -- what am I missing?

[Hillside Trece]

Originally Posted by drummerboy_2002

Audyssey is just a branding of a system that is included is some form or another in most decent AVR's these days.

Right...

I don't specifically need Audyssey in order to understand it's purpose.

I'm not saying that you don't understand its purpose...

If the goal were simply to allow the user to tweek the audio to his/her preference, it would have given them a multi-band EQ to adjust to their hearts content, and that's all.

...but isn't that what you're saying your Sony only does?

Given that it uses test tones and a mic, that tells me that it's adjusting for in-room responce, raising and lowering the frequency responce to more closely match the source. It's not a huge leap.

With regard to what I had asked in my original post to you -- that is, you don't have Audyssey in your system and yet you're making this claim -- well, then

[drummerboy_2002]

Originally Posted by Hillside Trece

Audyssey is just a branding of a system that is included is some form or another in most decent AVR's these days.

Right...

Wasn't saying their all the same program, just that they all attempt to do the same job.

Originally Posted by Hillside Trece

I don't specifically need Audyssey in order to understand it's purpose.


I'm not saying that you don't understand its purpose...

And yet...

Originally Posted by Hillside Trece

If the goal were simply to allow the user to tweek the audio to his/her preference, it would have given them a multi-band EQ to adjust to their hearts content, and that's all.

...but isn't that what you're saying your Sony only does?

Nope. The Sony also uses test tones and a mic. It's just that it's tones are limited, and there's no sub correction. It's just not as sophisticated as some flavors of Audyssey.

Originally Posted by Hillside Trece

Given that it uses test tones and a mic, that tells me that it's adjusting for in-room responce, raising and lowering the frequency responce to more closely match the source. It's not a huge leap.

With regard to what I had asked in my original post to you -- that is, you don't have Audyssey in your system and yet you're making this claim -- well, then

See previous post.

[Hillside Trece]

Originally Posted by drummerboy_2002

Wasn't saying their all the same program, just that they all attempt to do the same job.



And yet...



Nope. The Sony also uses test tones and a mic. It's just that it's tones are limited, and there's no sub correction. It's just not as sophisticated as some flavors of Audyssey.



See previous post.

I am completely and utterly at a loss in understanding even what you're saying at this point and how it differs so greatly with my understanding of Audyssey...let's just leave it at that.

[drummerboy_2002]

Originally Posted by Hillside Trece

I am completely and utterly at a loss in understanding even what you're saying at this point and how it differs so greatly with my understanding of Audyssey...let's just leave it at that.

Well then, let me clarify. You asked why it wasn't recommended to disable EQ. I answered. You questioned how someone could comment on the workings of Audyssey without having it. I pointed out that Audyssey is not a unique product, and that I do own a peice of equipement with similar software. You again questioned how someone could comment on Audyssey without owning it. I refered to my previous post.
I have no idea what your understanding of Audyssey is, as to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't been stated, and wasn't part of our conversation. I'm sorry if there was some confusion as to what was being expressed in my posts, and hope that it has now been cleared up.

[Hillside Trece]

Originally Posted by drummerboy_2002

I'm sorry if there was some confusion as to what was being expressed in my posts

Apology accepted, for I was completely confused as to the nature of your replies based on my questions.

I still stand by the notion/senitment that without using Audyssey, it's difficult to state that something exists in the realm of "what an engineer/filmmaker intended."

[drummerboy_2002]

Originally Posted by Hillside Trece

Apology accepted, for I was completely confused as to the nature of your replies based on my questions.

I still stand by the notion/senitment that without using Audyssey, it's difficult to state that something exists in the realm of "what an engineer/filmmaker intended."

If you prefer, I'll rephrase it to "as is was recorded".

[Hillside Trece]

Hey Everyone...

What happened to Bob, aka "Lordoftherings"?

And does anyone know what was up with his avatar?? What was that an image of?

[Yeha-Noha]

Originally Posted by Hillside Trece

I still stand by the notion/senitment that without using Audyssey, it's difficult to state that something exists in the realm of "what an engineer/filmmaker intended."

If you really do strive for that goal, then you should read and follow this paper.

I suggest you read Chapter 3 thoroughly especially sections 5, 6, and 7 which will help get you started if you set up the speakers in the room according to their recommendations. If you want your system to sound the way their monitors sounded, which is most certainly what the engineer/filmmaker intended, then you should follow their setup and calibration. After that, if you wish, you can use Audyssey to correct for your room's acoustics. But after using Audyssey you will then need to recalibrate your speakers and subwoofer(s) using the method outline in Chapter 3.6.

In all likelihood, one's room and corresponding speaker placement isn't going to be similar to theirs especially when it's HT. So, Audyssey used in such a room isn't necessarily going to achieve your goal. All you can hope to do is just correct for poor room acoustics (room treatments are better btw). A graphic equalizer and RTA/SPL meter will do just as good as Audyssey. All Audyssey does for me is measures the distances to the speakers as accurately as I could ever measure them with a tape measure. Beyond that, Audyssey isn't much use to me.

[Hillside Trece]

Originally Posted by rwojtalewicz

If you really do strive for that goal, then you should read and follow this paper.

I'm not saying that was my particular goal -- it was in the context of what I was discussing with drummer.

[Hillside Trece]

Originally Posted by rwojtalewicz

In all likelihood, one's room and corresponding speaker placement isn't going to be similar to theirs especially when it's HT.

Indeed...so it's something I wouldn't necessarily strive for.

So, Audyssey used in such a room isn't necessarily going to achieve your goal. All you can hope to do is just correct for poor room acoustics (room treatments are better btw).

Yes, I realize room treatment is a more effective method as compared to trying to equalize your way around problems.

A graphic equalizer and RTA/SPL meter will do just as good as Audyssey.

That's at the essence and proverbial heart of this thread; discussing the possibility of this sentiment.

All Audyssey does for me is measures the distances to the speakers as accurately as I could ever measure them with a tape measure. Beyond that, Audyssey isn't much use to me.

May I ask what kind of equipment you're running? AVR? Separate pre/pro and amp(s)? As for the tape measure, I am having a difficult time agreeing with that one -- how can Audyssey come closer than you can with a tape measure, unless you're talking about the delay it compensates for within the electronics (which I've never put much stock in anyway outside of a sub)?

I've never had any issues with whipping out a tape measure, taking the actual distances I record from physically looking at the numbers on the tape and then entering those into the receiver's setup menu -- I don't feel an auto setup routine necessarily has to do this for me. In fact, I believe it's one of the more fundamental and rudimentary aspects of the setup procedure -- while there may be some science behind the channel level trims and crossovers and such, to me, setting distances from each speaker to the sweet spot is as straightforward as it comes in this hobby (the aforementioned sub distance delay issue aside).

[Yeha-Noha]

Originally Posted by Hillside Trece

Indeed...so it's something I wouldn't necessarily strive for.



Yes, I realize room treatment is a more effective method as compared to trying to equalize your way around problems.



That's at the essence and proverbial heart of this thread; discussing the possibility of this sentiment.



May I ask what kind of equipment you're running? AVR? Separate pre/pro and amp(s)? As for the tape measure, I am having a difficult time agreeing with that one -- how can Audyssey come closer than you can with a tape measure, unless you're talking about the delay it compensates for within the electronics (which I've never put much stock in anyway outside of a sub)?

My current setup uses a Yamaha V663's pre-outs to feed external power amps: my wife's vintage Rotel 1050 stereo power amp for the front towers, a vintage monoblock amp I picked up for the center, and my old Adcom GFA 545 stereo power amp for the L and R side surrounds. I only use the V663's internal amps for the back L and R surrounds however.

A few years ago I used to have an Onkyo 605 when I first got interested in HT and blu-ray. It got so hot after watching a movie that one could fry an egg or cook potato pancakes on it. My wife didn't like the sound either. So we went out and finally decided on a Yamaha. My Audyssey experience stems from the 605 though. The Yamaha uses a different auto setup feature called YPAO. Neither one however was, nor is, of any use to me. I still get better results using the V663's built-n graphic equalizer and my SPL meter. YPAO just gives the distances I need for doing a manual setup. I use The Recording Academy's Producers & Engineers Wing Recommendations for Surround Sound as my main guide for doing setup.

I've never had any issues with whipping out a tape measure, taking the actual distances I record from physically looking at the numbers on the tape and then entering those into the receiver's setup menu -- I don't feel an auto setup routine necessarily has to do this for me. In fact, I believe it's one of the more fundamental and rudimentary aspects of the setup procedure -- while there may be some science behind the channel level trims and crossovers and such, to me, setting distances from each speaker to the sweet spot is as straightforward as it comes in this hobby (the aforementioned sub distance delay issue aside).

It's actually not that easy in my HT room to manually measure the distances to the surrounds. All four of my surrounds are mounted on the walls 7.5 ft off the floor and angled downward toward the listening area. My ceilings are sloped averaging 11 ft to 14 ft high. It really isn't so straight forward in my case to manually measure those distances which happen to be 9.5 to 10.0 ft from the position where I place the microphone. How many people would it take to measure the distance from those surrounds using a tape measure? Two! One standing on a ladder and the other at the microphone position. All I meant was that auto setup can do it faster, not better. Perhaps using the word 'accurate' wasn't the right one. It's really a matter of convenience not accuracy. True, either way works as well as the other. I have no issue at all with using a tape measure.

[Hillside Trece]

Originally Posted by rwojtalewicz

My current setup uses a Yamaha V663's pre-outs to feed external power amps: my wife's vintage Rotel 1050 stereo power amp for the front towers, a vintage monoblock amp I picked up for the center, and my old Adcom GFA 545 stereo power amp for the L and R side surrounds. I only use the V663's internal amps for the back L and R surrounds however.

Wow...a wife that's into gear like Rotel! I missed the marriage boat on this one! Congrats on that -- you're lucky to have her!

My dream is to someday do complete separates like you're running.

A few years ago I used to have an Onkyo 605 when I first got interested in HT and blu-ray. It got so hot after watching a movie that one could fry an egg or cook potato pancakes on it. My wife didn't like the sound either. So we went out and finally decided on a Yamaha. My Audyssey experience stems from the 605 though. The Yamaha uses a different auto setup feature called YPAO. Neither one however was, nor is, of any use to me. I still get better results using the V663's built-n graphic equalizer and my SPL meter. YPAO just gives the distances I need for doing a manual setup. I use The Recording Academy's Producers & Engineers Wing Recommendations for Surround Sound as my main guide for doing setup.

Okay...so you have experience with the 605 (which is what I'm running specifically)...I can't believe your wife has an ear for the sound! What didn't she care for with the 605?

I know these can run hot (a notorious Onkyo trait across their entire line) but I never had ANY heat issues with my 605 -- never shut down on me and never got to the point that it was really cookin'...but I've always given it enough breathing room.

I'm aware of Yamaha's proprietary YPAO system for setup; why did you feel that the 605 or the Yamaha weren't "any use to you" in terms of their onboard algorithms?

It's actually not that easy in my HT room to manually measure the distances to the surrounds. All four of my surrounds are mounted on the walls 7.5 ft off the floor and angled downward toward the listening area. My ceilings are sloped averaging 11 ft to 14 ft high. It really isn't so straight forward in my case to manually measure those distances which happen to be 9.5 to 10.0 ft from the position where I place the microphone. How many people would it take to measure the distance from those surrounds using a tape measure? Two! One standing on a ladder and the other at the microphone position. All I meant was that auto setup can do it faster, not better. Perhaps using the word 'accurate' wasn't the right one. It's really a matter of convenience not accuracy. True, either way works as well as the other. I have no issue at all with using a tape measure.

Oh -- you meant JUST to your surrounds was the issue? I thought you meant every speaker didn't benefit from the tape measure routine...

[Yeha-Noha]

Originally Posted by Hillside Trece

Wow...a wife that's into gear like Rotel! I missed the marriage boat on this one! Congrats on that -- you're lucky to have her!

Oh no, she's no audiophile. My brother-in-law (her brother) is one. Recently after their mom passed away, he gave us some old vintage stereo equipment that's been sitting around in his garage for a long time. So technically it's my wife's stuff but she would not have any idea of what to do with it. Some of it dates back to sometime in the 1970s: in particular a nice a Marantz 1050 integrated amp and a vintage 1990s vintage Rotel stereo power amp, the RB 960, not the 1050. I need to make that correction because I was writing my response to you from work and got the Marantz and Rotel models confused a little as you can see. The Rotel was purchased in the early '90s. He used the Marantz's pre-outs to drive the Rotel power amp. I don't know why he didn't get a Rotel pre-amp too, but that Marantz's 1050's separate pre-amp section with it's own pre-outs is no doubt just as good I suppose. It has a cute little jumper jack from the pre-out to main in on the back along with 3 tone controls: bass, mid, trebble on the front. It was probably state of the art back in the 70s.

My dream is to someday do complete separates like you're running.

Well, my Adcom 545 was sitting around for years doing nothing after I went from stereo/hi-fi to HT. When I bought the Yamaha V663, I had no intention at the time to use it as a pre-pro with the Adcom power amp. Actually I learned about doing that here on the forum. I am still using the V663 for the L/R back surrounds. I may try hooking up the Marantz power amp section to the rear surrounds using the V663's pre-out. However, the Marantz is only rated at 30 RMS watts per channel. The V663 should put out more than that especially since it only has to drive the back surrounds. I suppose that 30 RMS watts back in the 70s was real and not the hyped up watts we see these days. So, I may give it try one day to completely get away from using the V663 for power amplification.

Okay...so you have experience with the 605 (which is what I'm running specifically)...I can't believe your wife has an ear for the sound! What didn't she care for with the 605?

She's always been sensitive to the highs even before I got the Onkyo 605.
That's why she liked the Adcom stuff because it had a warmer sound and more natural highs. The Onkyo didn't suit her ears. However, I really didn't think the Onkyo sounded that bad. At my age, I no doubt have some high frequency lost by now though.

I know these can run hot (a notorious Onkyo trait across their entire line) but I never had ANY heat issues with my 605 -- never shut down on me and never got to the point that it was really cookin'...but I've always given it enough breathing room.

No, I probably didn't give it enough breathing room. There was 1 to 2 inches clearance above the vents beneath the shelf above. It got hot. You could even smell the varnish vapors outgassing from the shelf above the 605. The Yamaha 663 sat in the very same spot for awhile and only got barely warm to the touch. Amazing how different the two AVRs are.

I'm aware of Yamaha's proprietary YPAO system for setup; why did you feel that the 605 or the Yamaha weren't "any use to you" in terms of their onboard algorithms?

It's perhaps due to the large listening area in my house with tall ceilings and ceramic tile floors. YPAO always gave a nasty EQ setting in the 5K to 10K range boosting it +6.0 db no matter how many times I repeated it or moved the optimizer mike around. It did that consistently for all 7 speakers! Obviously YPAO didn't know how to deal with my room's acoustics.
I found setting EQ = OFF was better but not perfect either. So, I started using the GEQ (graphical Equalizer) along with test tones matching the GEQ bands and an SPL meter. The difference was night and day in the mid range and highs. YPAO seem to do a fairly decent job of PEQ in the bass though. But it was totally off on the midrange and highs. Audyssey was pretty similar as well but not quite as bad as YPAO. Yamaha should really consider switching to Audyssey. It's better and more comprehensive, and also more complicated to use than YPAO. YPAO is for Mr. Joe Six Pack. Audyssey is more for those who know what they are doing.

Oh -- you meant JUST to your surrounds was the issue? I thought you meant every speaker didn't benefit from the tape measure routine...

That's right, just the surrounds.

[moodyman]

I took posession of a Marantaz AV7005 pre/pro a few days ago. This is my first exposure to Audyssey. I absolutley love it so far. I am also very famaliar with Pioneers MCACC (not bad) and Emotiva's EMO-Q (terrible IMO). I'm now an Audyssey convert and will be for the forseeable future.

[moodyman]

Originally Posted by Hillside Trece

Here's another thing, fellas...

Also -- I was at a loss to understand what to do with my crossover programming...that is, Onkyo suggested the points, Audyssey plugged them in, but I knew they were wrong for my speakers (i.e. the fronts should be around 60Hz, not full range). But I was unsure if I should have CHANGED these values because as I understand it, going either up or down (forgot which) will negate the application of Audyssey...and then, there are the EQ curves...once auto set, my 605 reads "AUDYSSEY" on the display, suggesting me that's the EQ curve. How can I override this so I don't get those "lobbed off" highs?

1. Your perfectly fine raising the xover levels. But you shouldn't lower them. If your AVR sets the xover to say 80Hz audyssey only calculates above that (for the mains). If you lower to 40 for example then there is no Audysessy correction between 40-80Hz.

2. You should have an Audysessy 'flat' option. I believe this option doesn't taper the highs.

[Hillside Trece]

Originally Posted by rwojtalewicz

Oh no, she's no audiophile. My brother-in-law (her brother) is one. Recently after their mom passed away, he gave us some old vintage stereo equipment that's been sitting around in his garage for a long time. So technically it's my wife's stuff but she would not have any idea of what to do with it. Some of it dates back to sometime in the 1970s: in particular a nice a Marantz 1050 integrated amp and a vintage 1990s vintage Rotel stereo power amp, the RB 960, not the 1050. I need to make that correction because I was writing my response to you from work and got the Marantz and Rotel models confused a little as you can see. The Rotel was purchased in the early '90s. He used the Marantz's pre-outs to drive the Rotel power amp. I don't know why he didn't get a Rotel pre-amp too, but that Marantz's 1050's separate pre-amp section with it's own pre-outs is no doubt just as good I suppose. It has a cute little jumper jack from the pre-out to main in on the back along with 3 tone controls: bass, mid, trebble on the front. It was probably state of the art back in the 70s.

Oh, OK; I hear you. My condolences on the passing; my father in law just passed a couple of days ago from the end stage of lung cancer.

Well, my Adcom 545 was sitting around for years doing nothing after I went from stereo/hi-fi to HT. When I bought the Yamaha V663, I had no intention at the time to use it as a pre-pro with the Adcom power amp. Actually I learned about doing that here on the forum. I am still using the V663 for the L/R back surrounds. I may try hooking up the Marantz power amp section to the rear surrounds using the V663's pre-out. However, the Marantz is only rated at 30 RMS watts per channel. The V663 should put out more than that especially since it only has to drive the back surrounds. I suppose that 30 RMS watts back in the 70s was real and not the hyped up watts we see these days. So, I may give it try one day to completely get away from using the V663 for power amplification.

Yeah, what I'd like to do is use an AVR as a pre/pro and feed that to a monster outboard amp so my Polk RTi12's can get some serious juice; it's a dream that's far from reality right now.

She's always been sensitive to the highs even before I got the Onkyo 605. That's why she liked the Adcom stuff because it had a warmer sound and more natural highs. The Onkyo didn't suit her ears. However, I really didn't think the Onkyo sounded that bad. At my age, I no doubt have some high frequency lost by now though.

LOL, I hear ya; indeed, my hearing must be going as well, from years of being a mobile DJ and having those speakers so close to my ears. At any rate, it sounds like your wife does indeed have a touch of "golden ear syndrome" and that's good...

I don't detect "highs" being intolerable on the 605 to be perfectly honest; it sounds overall neutral to me.

No, I probably didn't give it enough breathing room. There was 1 to 2 inches clearance above the vents beneath the shelf above. It got hot. You could even smell the varnish vapors outgassing from the shelf above the 605. The Yamaha 663 sat in the very same spot for awhile and only got barely warm to the touch. Amazing how different the two AVRs are.

Yes, it's something with the amp sections and the heat sinks in the Onkyo lineup; indeed, these things need breathing room -- even their entry level "500" series seems to heat up...

It's perhaps due to the large listening area in my house with tall ceilings and ceramic tile floors.

Yeah, that'll do it...an acoustic nightmare -- believe me, I know.

YPAO always gave a nasty EQ setting in the 5K to 10K range boosting it +6.0 db no matter how many times I repeated it or moved the optimizer mike around. It did that consistently for all 7 speakers! Obviously YPAO didn't know how to deal with my room's acoustics.

Wow, +6dB is a good amount of gain...

I found setting EQ = OFF was better but not perfect either. So, I started using the GEQ (graphical Equalizer) along with test tones matching the GEQ bands and an SPL meter. The difference was night and day in the mid range and highs. YPAO seem to do a fairly decent job of PEQ in the bass though. But it was totally off on the midrange and highs. Audyssey was pretty similar as well but not quite as bad as YPAO. Yamaha should really consider switching to Audyssey. It's better and more comprehensive, and also more complicated to use than YPAO. YPAO is for Mr. Joe Six Pack. Audyssey is more for those who know what they are doing.

That's great that you had the energy and patience to individually equalize each band for what was best in your space -- I couldn't possibly devote the time to that so I just leave the EQ of Audyssey OFF as I'm not running the auto setup program.

That's right, just the surrounds.

Okay; the way you described it, indeed it seems it would be difficult to physically measure from the sweet spot to those satellites -- however, in my room, I was able to reach the in-ceiling surrounds with the tape measure so I was able to dial those in manually.

[Hillside Trece]

Originally Posted by moodyman

I took posession of a Marantaz AV7005 pre/pro a few days ago. This is my first exposure to Audyssey. I absolutley love it so far. I am also very famaliar with Pioneers MCACC (not bad) and Emotiva's EMO-Q (terrible IMO). I'm now an Audyssey convert and will be for the forseeable future.

Thanks for your opinions, moody.

What made Emotiva's system so horrible? What do you "absolutely love" about Audyssey so far?

[Hillside Trece]

Originally Posted by moodyman

1. Your perfectly fine raising the xover levels. But you shouldn't lower them. If your AVR sets the xover to say 80Hz audyssey only calculates above that (for the mains). If you lower to 40 for example then there is no Audysessy correction between 40-80Hz.

So, if the AVR sets the crossovers for my mains, for example, to Full Range, I can change this to 60Hz? Or is this going the wrong way in which you describe above would be bad?

2. You should have an Audysessy 'flat' option. I believe this option doesn't taper the highs.

I don't believe the 605 has this option...