|
|
Post by Stevens on May 2, 2010 4:26:55 GMT -5
I guess LOTR is referring to the Audyssey graphs such as can be seen on page 3 of this review: link . Also a very thorough review here ( link ), but with no graphs or screenshots included. |
|
|
|
Post by markus on May 2, 2010 8:11:30 GMT -5
Markus: before I let it go, you might want to have a look at this link. Thanks for the link but it doesn't explain Audyssey's optimization strategy. I'm especially interested what kind of corrections are applied to higher frequencies. Does Audyssey just correct speaker to speaker tolerance which would result in speaker correction and no room correction (which is preferrable) or does it try to correct the room as well (which is practically impossible). |
|
|
|
Post by markus on May 2, 2010 8:16:09 GMT -5
I guess LOTR is referring to the Audyssey graphs such as can be seen on page 3 of this review: link . There's no labeling? Looks like some kind of smoothing is applied that hides important details. Those graphs tell (me) nothing but marketing probably likes them  |
|
|
|
Post by Stevens on May 2, 2010 16:12:09 GMT -5
Markus - you're a tough one to please! Of speaker to speaker tolerance correction vs. room correction: I would guess that, since all the measurements are taken in the room, it would be impossible for Audyssey to distinguish between speaker and room influences. As such, they must try to correct for both speaker and room variances. As for the labelling on those graphs; who knows if it's there or not, or what other screens there are. I've never used the Pro version. However, those graphs after corrections do look impressively smooth. And, yes, I like them (and I am a marketeer & an engineer). Anyway, I don't know the answers to your questions, I'm just another newbie at this, albeit an enthusiastic convert seeing that Audyssey MultEQ works great for my system. Since you have such an interest in this topic, did you ever try asking Audyssey directly? They seem to be very available & helpful on their blogs. If you ask them the right way, I'm sure they would love to discuss the intricacies of their baby.  |
|
|
|
Post by markus on May 2, 2010 17:18:25 GMT -5
Markus - you're a tough one to please! I'm just alergic to misleading marketing blah. Of speaker to speaker tolerance correction vs. room correction: I would guess that, since all the measurements are taken in the room, it would be impossible for Audyssey to distinguish between speaker and room influences. That can be done by gating the impulse response. There's a lower frequency limit that is determined by the reflection free time span of the impulse response. However, those graphs after corrections do look impressively smooth. Just apply enough smoothing and even a totally broken speaker will look ok. Since you have such an interest in this topic, did you ever try asking Audyssey directly? Of course I did but they don't tell you anything. Audio is a business. www.harman.com/EN-US/Investorinformation/Pages/QuarterlyResults.aspx |
|
|
|
Post by ghstudio on May 2, 2010 19:15:27 GMT -5
When you get an audyssey pro calibration, you get a before and after graph for each speaker. Audyssey has four basic tuning standard targets built into their tuning software, although you can also create your own target curve. Generally speaking, flat is not ideal although most think that's exactly what they want. In most rooms, a slight decline of treble is better, but as I said, you can tune to flat or the other curves. Since measurements are taken with a microphone in the actual room, the audyssey adjustments will assure that your output will be as close to the curve selected as possible. If your room has resonances or reflections at certain frequencies, audyssey will adjust for them. That's exactly what you want to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topend on May 2, 2010 19:41:37 GMT -5
How do they use Audyssey Pro? Can it be used to set up the UMC-1?
Cheers, Dave.
|
|
|
|
Post by ghstudio on May 2, 2010 20:40:11 GMT -5
audyssey pro software is used with audyssey pro capable devices...it's not for general tuning and it has no value with the UMC-1 unless you have an external Audyssey MultiEQ Pro box.
If you want general tuning software, Foom Equalizaton Wizard is an excellent program.
|
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on May 2, 2010 21:14:23 GMT -5
Yup, from the software with Audyssey MultEQ Pro. * But if you use only Audyssey MultEQ XT, you can get REW to show you the graps too. Me, I used my ears as the final judge.  |
|
|
|
Post by markus on May 2, 2010 21:19:08 GMT -5
If your room has resonances or reflections at certain frequencies, audyssey will adjust for them. That's exactly what you want to happen. That's what you want to happen but physics doesn't allow for this to happen. You can't correct room resonances at higher frequencies within an area that is big enough for one listening position, let alone multiple seats. Only a single point in a room can be corrected with an EQ. The higher the frequency the smaller the area. Furthermore you're correcting the steady state response but music has a transient character at higher frequencies. Best, Markus |
|
|
|
Post by markus on May 2, 2010 21:25:26 GMT -5
Yup, from the software with Audyssey MultEQ Pro. * But if you use only Audyssey MultEQ XT, you can get REW to show you the graps too. Me, I used my ears as the final judge. Then those graphs are sugarcoated and pretty much useless. But they probably will make the customer feel good. And sometimes that's all it takes to make people believe that everything sounds good. Using your ears as the final judge will not result in accurate sound reproduction. Our hearing is notoriously unreliable. |
|
NorthStar
Seeker Of Truth
"And it stoned me to my soul" - Van Morrison
Posts: 0
|
Post by NorthStar on May 2, 2010 21:26:01 GMT -5
Higher audio frequencies are best fixed by room treatments (absorbers, diffusers, etc.).
|
|
|
|
Post by billmac on May 3, 2010 6:48:22 GMT -5
Then those graphs are sugarcoated and pretty much useless. But they probably will make the customer feel good. And sometimes that's all it takes to make people believe that everything sounds good. Using your ears as the final judge will not result in accurate sound reproduction. Our hearing is notoriously unreliable. I'm not sure if you have experienced Audyssey in your system but I enjoy the results in mine with my 886. I am not even remotely as technical person as yourself and appreciate your inquiries into trying to find how Audyssey really works. I use my ears as a judge which in your opinion is not very reliable. I respect that opinion but when does the fact finding become somewhat obsessive with just sitting down and enjoying ones system being the priority? But to each his own . This is my way of judging the sound in my system as well. Speaking for myself alone but maybe ignorance is bliss . I know the sound quality of my room is far from perfect but I have very little time as it is to enjoy some music or a movie. Spending hours to try to improve the SQ a small amount is not my idea of a good time . But again to each his own . Bill |
|
|
|
Post by markus on May 3, 2010 7:17:53 GMT -5
I use my ears as a judge which in your opinion is not very reliable. I respect that opinion but when does the fact finding become somewhat obsessive with just sitting down and enjoying ones system being the priority? Bill Don't worry, I enjoy my system I just like verify the function of my gear because consumers basically buy a pig in a poke when it comes to audio equipment. Most numbers manufacturers show are meaningless. But as everybody is doing it the same way and no customer requests detailed data, there's no need to change anything. And then there are simply software bugs. The UMC-1 is an inglorious example. But don't think others are doing any better: www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1152661Best, Markus |
|
|
|
Post by ghstudio on May 3, 2010 13:35:13 GMT -5
Higher audio frequencies are best fixed by room treatments (absorbers, diffusers, etc.). No disagreement here, but my choice is fixing my room or staying married..... "Then those graphs are sugarcoated and pretty much useless. But they probably will make the customer feel good. And sometimes that's all it takes to make people believe that everything sounds good. Using your ears as the final judge will not result in accurate sound reproduction. Our hearing is notoriously unreliable." Why do you think the graphs are sugarcoated...in fact, they still show that there are problems that are not corrected by Audyssey. They aren't boilerplate graphs..they are based on measurements in the actual room. As I've said on other topics...if you don't like the xxx feature, don't use it. Some hear major differences when changing the speaker cables...I can't hear any difference at all...so I don't pay $1000 for cables. To me, Audyssey made a significant difference in the sound...for the better....so I am pleased with it, and I use it. EMoQ may do as well....I don't know. I fully agree that our ears are terrible at tuning a sound system for someone else....my ears are not your ears. If you like it, it's good....if I like it, it's good for me. |
|
|
|
Post by markus on May 3, 2010 14:00:13 GMT -5
|
|
