I actually own a simple 3.0 setep so nothing complicated to make audyssey work hard in calculation. Anyhow i have always run my setup from my receiver manual. So this afternoon i have run my audyssey multeq xt32 from my receiver.
Front : Full Band Center : 60hz
Right : -4.5db Center : -2.5db Left : -5.5db
Ok, so i have a symmetric room so i wonder why left speaker have -1.0db less. Also VP150 isn't made to get that low (Freq Resp +/-3dB (Hz): 85 - 20 kHz) according to Axiom specs. I haven't run test myself to see if i get better result, but i would like to see if Audyssey is popular and if people leave it or keep it on.
So, should we trust Audyssey ?
Thank.
Nad C356 DAC & C515 Axiom M3v3 Grant Fidelity RPF-120 MKII Analysis Plus Black Oval 12&10 JRiver 19
Depends on where the mic was placed and how many measurements were taken, the furniture, windows, rug, one speaker toed in more ect. lots of variables.
Audyssey seems to be a love-or-hate thing with people. It's worked for me.
Half of communication is listening. You can't listen with your mouth.
Make sure you take as many positions as the system allows, that will give you a better result. If Audyssey sets your VP150 it's because you're benefiting from room gain and it can play those frequencies in your room. I like to use Audyssey for the calculations of distance and channel level. I would then change the crossover to my liking. Most of the time I listen at moderate level so I like to have DynEQ on (and therefore MultiEQ) so it makes the bass more audible since the human ear is more sensitive to high frequencies. When my family is sleeping I also have Dyn Vol on to keep it quite. However, when I have the house for myself and usually listen at higher volume, I turn Audyssey off as I find it to sound more natural that way. Really, I like it better off but both DynEQ and DynVol are very useful features that unfortunately (IMO) can only be used when using MultiEQ.
Bruno M80s/VP180/QS8s/EP600/AVR-890 ------------------------------------ "The problem is choice..."
Audyssey is very accurate, if the measurements are taken correctly in a silent room. Position is important, for ex, you don't want to take measurements "outside" of the speakers locations, you need to be "within" a bubble of the seating locations.
Also, it looks for the -3dB point of each speaker and reports that back to the receiver. So it is not suprising if you mains and center get a "large" or low frequency reading. But, even Audyssey says if the receiver, not Audyssey, sets a speaker to large, if you have a sub, you should change that speaker to "small" and possibly bump up the crossover to 80hz. Never lower a crossover setting.
The dB level readings, as well as distance is not big deal if they are slightly different, all rooms are different.
I personally followed the video guide below for setup after much trail and error. Since I followed this guide I haven't had to redo calibration. I couldn't have ask for better sound!
I might so some test about audyssey on/off to see if i can ear the difference. But like i said, a 3.0 system might not give auddysey what that was created for...
Nad C356 DAC & C515 Axiom M3v3 Grant Fidelity RPF-120 MKII Analysis Plus Black Oval 12&10 JRiver 19
Also (and I've said it before here many times) Audyssey and other auto-setup/EQ systems are error-prone so don't rely on their settings as absolute. If your ears tell you otherwise, then play with the crossover settings and the Small/Large settings. It varies so much with room size and with speaker location.
Conventional wisdom is a simplified way of doing things for the masses. It makes things easy for John Q. Public by not presenting him with to many options. I submit that if you bought Axiom or most other well regarded speakers you are not that average Joe and would benefit from trying out all aspects of your system, including Audyssey. Other conventional Audyssey wisdom is to use only direct radiating speakers in all positions, including surround and back, which precludes the use of Axiom QS speakers which not only are Bipole design but further complicate EQ calculations by having drivers facing in 4 rather than 2 or 3 directions like most Bipole speakers.
Please try out Audyssey. You may find that you like what it does. You may find that you like the Audyssey “Flat Curve” better than the “Audyssey Curve.” You may find that you like what Audyssey does for your bass but not the mid-range or highs. In the end you should be the one to determine what sounds best to you not me, another person or a consensus of opinion on an internet forum.
Cheers, Dean
Last edited by grunt; 03/07/1102:40 AM. Reason: Axiom doesn't do Cyrillic
3M80 2M22 6QS8 2M2 1EP500 Sony BDP-S590 Panny-7000 Onkyo-3007 Carada-134 Xbox Buttkicker AS-EQ1
Nice video find Dana, that is a good introduction 101 for folks wanting to make sure they get started correctly with Audyssey. In my opinion, if run correctly, there really is no reason not to incorporate Audyssey if it is a feature of your AVR.
Unfortunately, Audyssey is sometimes compared or placed in the same category of other inferior setup calibration products on the market and said to be "error-prone". This is an opinion and there is always an opposite opinion. It does not make good speakers like Axiom sound worse, actually it is the opposite.
Unfortunately, Audyssey is sometimes compared or placed in the same category of other inferior setup calibration products on the market and said to be "error-prone". This is an opinion and there is always an opposite opinion. It does not make good speakers like Axiom sound worse, actually it is the opposite.
The highlighted portion is also an opinion which not all share.
3M80 2M22 6QS8 2M2 1EP500 Sony BDP-S590 Panny-7000 Onkyo-3007 Carada-134 Xbox Buttkicker AS-EQ1
Unfortunately, Audyssey is sometimes compared or placed in the same category of other inferior setup calibration products on the market and said to be "error-prone". This is an opinion and there is always an opposite opinion. It does not make good speakers like Axiom sound worse, actually it is the opposite.
The highlighted portion is also an opinion which not all share.
The other highlighted portion in an opinion I am in agreement with
Rick
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Sigmund Freud
Audyssey alters the response of the actual speaker itself and not that of the room despite being regarding as a room correction program.
Therefore Audyssey will make a difference. Whether you like it better with Audyssey equalization on or off will be different from user to user. There is not a absolute answer. Pick which one you prefer.
I’m armed and I’m drinking. You don’t want to listen to advice from me, amigo.
True Grunt, but at least I have actually used Audyssey for years with my Axioms with great results and flatter graph response. Unlike those that have never used Audyssey and make comments to the contrary based on assumption.
True Grunt, but at least I have actually used Audyssey for years with my Axioms with great results and flatter graph response. Unlike those that have never used Audyssey and make comments to the contrary based on assumption.
That's an odd comment and making assumptions for people that don't like it never used it.
I’m armed and I’m drinking. You don’t want to listen to advice from me, amigo.
It is a fact, not opinion, that you can't solve a time domain problem in the frequency domain.
I've read Audyssey's white papers, and they have some impressive tech that goes a long way to fool the ear. But in the end, real improvements can only be made with physical room treatments.
Sirquack, I don’t ever recall saying that your experience and satisfaction with Audyssey are invalid because of my experience. However, you often content that my experiences, and those of others who prefers not to use Audyssey are in fact invalid because it works for you and many others.
Given the complexity of any audio system in dissimilar rooms with different listeners any one-size-fits-all solution is inherently problematic. Just to many variables most salient of which is personal preference.
I have no doubt that I have run Audyssey more times than you probably ever will, and done it properly since following a checklist is not that difficult especially for someone who does so for a living. Done it in 3 different rooms with different levels of performance each time. While using a total of 3 different variations of Audyssey.
I can say without reservation that the only thing Audyssey, in my receiver, improves in my present room is the width of the front soundstage by allowing the use of wide speakers. Yes that’s my opinion and I’ve never tried to force it on you or anyone else. I encourage people to try Audyssey since they paid for it. However, I also encourage them to listen to what their ears, not other people who’ve never heard their system, are telling them which in the end is what really matters IMO.
3M80 2M22 6QS8 2M2 1EP500 Sony BDP-S590 Panny-7000 Onkyo-3007 Carada-134 Xbox Buttkicker AS-EQ1
I have never heard or used Audyssey. While reading about room treatments on Real Traps website they say that Audyssey can fix the the peaks in frequency response but could not fill in the deep nulls because it would be asking too much of the amplifier.
Yeah, Audyssey can pull down the peaks (frequency domain), but it can't fix early reflections that cause smearing (time domain). Audyssey actually does quiet the attack of some frequencies that are prone to reverberation. Pulling down peaks in the bass range is just treating a symptom. Standing waves are also a time problem, and are best handled by not letting them form.
So yeah, neat tricks. And if it is included in the receiver you own, it may be worth it (since it's pretty much free). But fixing the room is the real solution.
Thanks for the video post Dana, I learned a lot from it. My experience with Audyssey has usually been negative. It always seemed to take away a lot of the low end of my system. After seeing the video, it could be because I was doing 2 things wrong. First, I was not quiet between the sweep periods, and second I had the microphone on top of my seating.
I'm going to try re-calibrating the system this week using the guidance shown in the video.
As someone who does a lot of audio work in acoustically treated rooms that are "tuned" and also uses professional studio monitors that have to be flat and accurate...
I think Audyssey is a bunch of hokum truthfully.
It reminds me of those stupid eq settings on HT receivers like: Stadium, Concert Hall, Men's Restroom, etc.
I opine that it's better to treat your room acoustically and/or work with speaker placement if you have weird nodes or reflections/anomalies and what not.
I would hate to futz with the Axiom speaker's eq myself. They are already correct.
Besides, there's much better software for analyzing your rooms acoustics. You will also need a very good professional microphone for such "accurate" data gathering.
If you are setting up an HT room and are not happy with your room's acoustics, I would definitely hire an acoustician to tell you what's is really happening, frequency wise, in your room.
There's lots of DIY acoustic treatments you can do for cheap. Bass traps are probably the most important, followed by diffusers.
I'm a firm believer in keeping your stereo eq settings flat. Always.
In fact, when I get into other people's cars I usually adjust their stereo. Invariably they have the bass and treble jacked up to 10.
They usually always thank me for sorting out their sound, lolz.
"Art is making something out of nothing and selling it." ---Frank Zappa
I opine that it's better to treat your room acoustically and/or work with speaker placement if you have weird nodes or reflections/anomalies and what not.
I’ve always suspected that the main reason I hear no improvement and sometimes poorer performance when using Audyssey is that I have never had and speaker placement constraints. In every room I’ve used, though not perfect, I’ve been able to play with speaker/seating placement to get everything dialed in. Plus my curtains double as room treatments for the mid and high frequencies. The only thing I’ve had problems dealing with is 200Hz and lower, and I agree at this point I would need professional help with that.
3M80 2M22 6QS8 2M2 1EP500 Sony BDP-S590 Panny-7000 Onkyo-3007 Carada-134 Xbox Buttkicker AS-EQ1
You quoted Alan, and I was responding to that, not your experience. I do not believe Alan has ever actually tested out Audyssey, but I know he often comments on caution when using any setup calibration routines. Again, my opinion is different as is many other people. Black vs White, Ford vs Chevy. That is what makes the world go around. I do not recall where I have ever said your comments are incorrect.
Thanks for the video post Dana, I learned a lot from it. My experience with Audyssey has usually been negative. It always seemed to take away a lot of the low end of my system. After seeing the video, it could be because I was doing 2 things wrong. First, I was not quiet between the sweep periods, and second I had the microphone on top of my seating.
I'm going to try re-calibrating the system this week using the guidance shown in the video.
Sure, no problem!
Yea, once I followed "exactly" what he did in the video, I was shocked at the difference it made. In fact, the only thing I have altered was bumping my center level up to +1.5 db
I think that's just here and if you look around you are likely to see it is more like 80/20 in Audyssey's favour. Now that I have MultiEQ XT32 I ain't ever turning it off. Anyone want to buy an AS-EQ1?
Also Known as: Ad Populum Description of Appeal to Popularity
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:
1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X). 2. Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.
It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.
This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question.
This fallacy is closely related to the Appeal to Emotion fallacy, as discussed in the entry for that fallacy.
3M80 2M22 6QS8 2M2 1EP500 Sony BDP-S590 Panny-7000 Onkyo-3007 Carada-134 Xbox Buttkicker AS-EQ1
Also Known as: Ad Populum Description of Appeal to Popularity
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:
1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X). 2. Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.
It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.
This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question.
This fallacy is closely related to the Appeal to Emotion fallacy, as discussed in the entry for that fallacy.
Very informative, daddy. Isn't this also along the lines of cognitive dissonance?
The only reasonable argument for owning a gun is to protect yourself from the police.
Also Known as: Ad Populum Description of Appeal to Popularity
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:
1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X). 2. Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.
It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.
This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question.
This fallacy is closely related to the Appeal to Emotion fallacy, as discussed in the entry for that fallacy.
Very informative, daddy. Isn't this also along the lines of cognitive dissonance?
If the Audyssey feature was one the main reasons on why you made a purchase, then yes cognitive dissonance could occur. Defending a purchase is very common especially on audio and video related message boards and is why so many people spend so much time talking and defending what they own. That is why I do not rely much on opinions but rather objective data.
I’m armed and I’m drinking. You don’t want to listen to advice from me, amigo.
Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.
The not so good old Edward Bernays is the father of this concept. Thanks to the help of his uncle, Sigmund Freud, he discovered that people's subconscious desires can be used to sell them products that they don't need. He created public relations which utilizes propaganda to its full extent.
The first implementation of this was used with Aunt Jemima's cake mix. A study was done with women and how the preparation of said cake mix played with their senses.
The results were that the women didn't get an emotional lift, or any sort of satisfaction because they were simply mixing together a prepared cake mix.
As a result of their findings, Edward Bernays and his cronies, simply added an egg to the ingredients. This simple task ended up giving the women a sense of worth because it made them feel like they were doing more for their partner, thus driving their subconscious desires.
The way products are sold to us now, literally stems from adding an egg.
PS. This is my explanation, and I don't claim to be an expert .
The only reasonable argument for owning a gun is to protect yourself from the police.
So are these Harmon International employees are 100% objective about room correction systems that the competition is using? If I spend $20. will I find out more than some work better than others?
I looked at the powerpoint. Based on my personal evaluation of the data I (especially the part about flat response) have concluded that everything 2x6 has ever posted is correct!
I looked at the powerpoint. Based on my personal evaluation of the data I (especially the part about flat response) have concluded that everything 2x6 has ever posted is correct!
(lampy ducks for cover)
Yeah. It looks to replicate that of a sound power curve that you would typically see. Interesting!
I’m armed and I’m drinking. You don’t want to listen to advice from me, amigo.
So are these Harmon International employees are 100% objective about room correction systems that the competition is using? If I spend $20. will I find out more than some work better than others?
Yeah, but which brand(s) of correction is best, better, or crap is not identified.
I’m armed and I’m drinking. You don’t want to listen to advice from me, amigo.
My favorite expression of this was found on the men's room wall of CCNY:
Eat Sh!t, 60 trillion flies can't ALL be wrong.
Originally Posted By: grunt
Also Known as: Ad Populum Description of Appeal to Popularity
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:
1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X). 2. Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.
It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.
This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question.
This fallacy is closely related to the Appeal to Emotion fallacy, as discussed in the entry for that fallacy.
Enjoy the Music. Trust your ears. Laugh at Folks Who Claim to Know it All.
That was also my reasoning, not sure how someone would take it any other way.
Actually I didn't but others might. The problem with internet forums is that you can't shout others down by talking louder but you can by talking longer.
