Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater receivers? Sherwood, Denon, Yamaha?

truth be told I am asking all of these questions because i am moving and building a new room. I like the look of mine and want to recreate it in many ways. I think i have learned that I should be happy with my Denon 3806 if I do a better job of speaker placement and receiver set up. Everyone seems to be saying that as long as the receiver is a decent quality the brand is not necessarily as important as speaker placement and sound set up. The new room will not have the stone pillar as there is no support beam to deal with. The room will be 19x18 with 9' ceilings so i think i will trade up to the qs8 and the ep350. I am replacing my speakers in my current room with stock builder inwalls, leaving the seating and projector to rent the house with a working theater (will rent it fast and for more my realtor says). I was going to leave my Denon too because I was frustrated with continuous attempts to improve the sound quality. Now that i know the speaker placement is more likely the problem i am thinking of buying a cheap receiver to replace the Denon and bring the Denon to my new house. Does that sound like the best plan?

I was going to say the same thing about your center. It is best to have the tweeters for the front/left/center to be as close to ear level (when seated) as possible. Obviously, this is not always possible. In my situation, my center is right below the screen, but slightly tilted upward. You want a balance soundstage from left to right, having the center way high screws that up for movies and multi channel music. One alternative is to have dual centers, one above, one below, which gives you the same affect as your left/right and makes the dialog dead center.

I would not say your surrounds were located in that bad of a position from the pictures I saw above. Mine are 7ft off the g round and work great.

Perhaps it is the reverse, that you are not understanding how it works in a big picture presentation.

The Audyssey can ONLY compensate (somewhat) for the room artifacts in limited locations (where the equalization mic was placed when Audyssey was in use).
There are far more than 8 finite positions in a room, shifting a foot in either direction will not reproduce the exact same frequency response curve. Audyssey cannot compensate for every one of these 8 points individually either. It simply takes an average of that which occurs across the 8, but what results does it actually provide?
If you have a huge bass hole in seat #7 and 8 but not any of the other 6 locations, the 'average' is still affected by that large anomaly and what sounded ok in seats 1 through 6 originally, now sound worse because of the effect Audyssey took into account from seats 7 and 8.

Another shortfall, Audyssey has very limited equalization capabilities considering the ENTIRE audio spectrum spans 20Hz - 20,000 kHz (give or take but the general range of the human ear).
Do you really think an 8 band equalizer is good enough to properly smooth that huge range?
There is a reason why sound control boards (e.g. at concert halls) have alot more than 8 sliders.

Try to think more broadly before slamming someone who has far greater experience and knowledge of the electronics and open your mind to alternate perspectives regarding the problems of the system. If you like Audysey, go crazy, but it is far from a simple solution to fix all that is really going on sound wise within a room, contrary to what the marketing and hype portrays.

As for 'linear response speakers', Axiom doesn't quote that their speakers will be linear in response at everyone's home. However if the goal is to have the most accurate reproduction of sound from the source, one has to start with flat response equipment, including speakers. The only universal way to measure that without room effects from the speaker company's design spaces is to use anechoic chambers.
It equalizes the field when comparing frequency spectrums from any source.

Chess, note that the separate manual equalization feature with 7-8 bands has nothing to do with the Audyssey equalization which may make hundreds of adjustments.

Simple room treatments and a SPL meter is all I will ever need! Its a shame nowadays that for a lot people this is an after thought.

Simple room treatments and WAF do not necessarily go together very well, for many of us room treatments are just not possible.

what Fred said:






First off if you haven’t calibrated both your systems either with a SPL meter or the receivers test tones then try that. If both systems aren’t calibrated it could just be that by luck you got his system closer to what you like than yours.

If both systems still sound different when they are calibrated and if it’s not too much trouble you could try your Denon in his setup or his Yamaha in yours and see if they sound the same. Try to calibrate them the same if possible. If there’s little difference then you know it’s not the receivers causing it.

Then if possible bring his QS and EP to your place or take yours to his and try them out. If they sound mostly the same in the same room then you know it’s not the speakers causing it. Which pretty much narrows it down to room and speaker placement within the room.

My guess is that you both have different speakers in different rooms with yours not placed and/or calibrated as well as his which are all combining to make a noticeable difference.

I know this all sounds like a pain but by doing all this you will gain a better apreciation of what makes things sound better or worse for you allowing you to make a more informed decision


Audyssey was a big selling point for my first Denon and so far it turned out to be the biggest waste of time I’ve had. Now I only use the SPL meter and a tape measurer because I prefer the results and it’s faster than even the auto setup. Of course now I want to probably waste more time with Trinnov if someone can ever really get it to market.

Since you haven't spent any time learning that Audyssey is NOT an 8 band equalizer (not even close), how can you slam me???????????? Please, do some research.

Secondly, what would you propose doing about the limitations? Is there something better?

Lastly, I realize that Alan has years of experience. I also realize that Tomlinson Holman and professor Chris Kyriakakis may have a clue as well.

That's my error. Writing too quickly. I was referring to Audyssey as the whole EQ system in the receiver and not specifically the Audyssey option of the choices for EQ.

As JohnK pointed out, the manual option is limited to the parametric bands. However, the actual Audyssey option, although claiming not to use an averaging method, states they use a clustering method to "combine measurements so that acoustical problems are better represented, thus allowing the equalization filter to perform the appropriate correction at each location.".
Umm, how does a $1500 receiver manage to correct for audio 'faults' at each of 8 different locations in a room?
Clustering, such as is done in statistics to gain information about groups with seemingly large random variance within and between groups, STILL uses an averaging of sorts (comparison of variance and means) to identify clusters that are different. With that information, one can deduce where an audio difference would 'need' to be corrected with a higher probability of occurrence.
For example, one measures 5 dB down in 200 Hz at 6 of the locations, but only 5dB down in 350Hz at one location. The Audyssey would likely correct for the 200 Hz anomaly but not the one at 350 Hz.
Audyssey still uses an 'averaging' if the assumption of their clustering method is as described. In the end, it ultimately still only guesses at a single frequency adjustment curve to 'best' fit all 8 locations measured within a room.
At best it may reduce very large peaks or deep humps but again, depending on where the mic is placed those 8 times, it could worsen the sound at the seating area which is not necessarily indicative of the sound represented at the locations measured depending on the results of the clustering.
The more flat response a room at that exists to begin with, the better the Audyssey function will be at its interpretation.
The more wacky the sound is across the room, the worse its interpretation.
Well that doesn't really help people with bad rooms then does it?

I'm not claiming to make any recommendations on how to improve the sound in a room. In fact, in my media room i haven't bothered to EQ or add acoustic treatments of any kind. We put in carpet, big plush chairs, have a room that is not a perfect square or rectangle (has a ceiling with broken heights and an angled wall, with painted walls and french doors that recently had curtains installed.
It is by far the best listening room i've ever heard though i have yet to measure any frequency responses with software so perhaps this is a mental bias because i like what we did with the room. I do know i'm not 100% happy with our surround placement but with limited space, frankly i don't care. It works well enough. Of all the people who've auditioned speakers here over the past 5 years, all have agreed that the speakers sound phenomenal in the room and two have commented their Axioms didn't sound as good in their own places as they did when they were here.
Reason: room effects, obviously.

I really don't see the point of fighting a losing battle, for the time, effort and cost to eek out flattening a few decibels that most probably wouldn't even notice. I suspect there are less obvious differences to be heard than what many report without being able to easily test, blind A/B a before and after situation.

I've learned not to believe everyone or everything that one reads or 'learns' about audio even from pros (though some are more honest than others). Many of those you may think 'know' something, are really just selling another belief to sell a product whether they know it or not.
Don't just buy into the ideas but rather follow the science. Does it really make sense or not?

Chess,

Thanks for the detailed elucidation of the complexities of rooms and electronic measurement and correction of room problems.

Dewd:

Of course I understand how Audyssey operates. I've known Tom Holman for 20 years or more. He's done excellent work over the years and while I haven't always agreed with some of his theories (particularly the use of dipole surrounds in modern surround systems) I admire his research and dedication to improving sound reproduction both in cinemas and in the home. On the other hand, he does have a financial interest in the royalties from Audyssey so I naturally question some of the claims.

I don't "hate" Audyssey or similar systems. By all means use it for initial setup, even with some its acknowledged erratic behavior with subwoofers. I just don't want enthusiasts thinking that Audyssey is some sort of electronic panacea that will work magic in any home theater setup.

I'd prefer everyone do a careful manual setup using an SPL meter and then listen, evaluating what they are hearing. Look at the furnishings and reflective surfaces. Elaborate room treatments are not necessary in most domestic rooms. Simple additions such as draperies, a rug or two, and adjusting speaker or subwoofer placement may dramatically improve sound quality.

Then try out Audyssey if you want to tinker. Switch it on and off, and if it helps correct some bass humps, great, use it.

Regards,

Alan