3 Weeks with Audyssey, the Good, Bad and the Ugly Part 3. Where to from here?

[TLS Guy]

Please read Part 1 and Part 2 first.

If you have read parts 1 and 2 you will see that Audyssey had a significantly negative impact on my system.

I think there are a number of reasons.

Audyssey had trouble distinguishing a room null from a speaker problem. Then Audyssey exacerbated the problem crossing the speaker over at 200 Hz right in the middle of the range where BSC is operative. This is a big problem as the low pass crossover is fourth order and the high pass second order. So in a futile attempt to sort this mess out it applied a huge boost just above crossover and and a huge cut just below it.
The result was making a really good speaker sound like a very poor one. Audyssey could only be tricked by applying excessive BSC.

I think Audyssey has built in OCD. If you look at those curves it just fusses about far too much. I can be pretty sure all those corrections have phase and therefore time shifts.

Trying to boost a null is something Audyssey should not do. For one thing nulls are not usually highly adverse or noticed unlike peaks. Correcting nulls is bad for the health of speakers. I'm pretty sure we have a case open now on these forums where Audyssey has contributed to blowing up a number of drivers.

Audyssey keeps its details proprietary. It is not therefore possible to know what is going on. I have a suspicion that the sound of the surrounds and rear backs is specifically skewed. What Audyssey did to my surrounds and rear backs is beyond reason and adverse.

There is no doubt in my mind that it sets the sub a little too high. It did that on my last pre/pro as well. I think it is about 2 db too hot.

By my measurements, it sets the rear backs too high also. This is hard to gauge as there are multiple locations. To give all listeners the best experience I believe requires turning the rear backs down so that rear row listeners have a good experience.

On the good side it got the distances right.

The crossovers are more controversial.

This room has a null at 60 to 80 Hz which I have known for a long time. So Audyssey set the crossovers to 40 Hz. and boosted the sub. This was not a good solution as the end of the last octave was too loud, and the null exacerbated for most locations. Mine was the better solution.

Now this gets us to the thorny situation of speakers should be crossed to subs or just supplemented by them. I have long eluded to the fact that UK audio authorities in particular advise running speakers full range where possible and setting the sub to come in half an octave above F3 and then getting the level right. I agree with this. I don't think I have ever set up a system not using this plan. To me it always sounds the best.

The disadvantage is that it does not offload cone excursion of small drivers. However in the tuning range cone excursion is not usually an issue but it is below.

The big problem is the BSC of the speakers crossed over. An 80 Hz crossover is well in range of the BSC of the speakers crossed over, and will affect the speaker all the way to 160 Hz. This I'm certain is adverse.
The bass strings of an orchestra I find a badly the looser in this full crossover arrangement generally. In the last octave the ear is not critical, so I don't feel it is an issue at 40 Hz or below.

Because of this if you want to blend and supplement bringing in subs half an octave above F3 makes perfect sense.

I strongly advise you all try this at least once.

One thing I did note is that signal to noise seemed to be improved without the high pass circuits operative. Adding nose is always a penalty of active high pass crossovers.

I have already alluded to the low level set by Audyssey to calibrate Dynamic Eq especially.

Now here I think we are getting into the pop/classical divide. Any type of dynamic compressor frequency dependent or not is an issue for classical music. The problem is setting attack and release. I used to spend hours getting code/encode noise reducers right in the analog tape reel to reel days.
In terms of compressors to get a master tape ready for LP cutting for instance was a terrible problem. A lot, myself included learned the skill of manual gain riding. You see you seem to never get the attack and release times right for all the passages in the score.

Dynamic Eq was no exception. Being a skilled listener, I could easily hear it working. It really upset the legato lines of slow movements in particular. The other issue is that as volume was decreased the HF boost degraded the signal to noise on this sensitive rig that I could hear it "pumping" the noise floor which was very unpleasant.

In any event I never used the old loudness controls. I always hated them and I find Dynamic Eq worse. I would never use it. So this has allowed me to set a more sensible gain structure.

Fletcher Munson curves are essential to the audiologist but not the music lover. As the volume is turned down the sound stage should appropriately recede.

Dynamic Eq also seems to give a nasty boost to the last octave. I note when watching TV with it engaged there is gratuitous floor shaking. I think that is a sop to the "I paid good money for this sub and I want it to hit hard!"

So what is the way forward. I suspect Audyssey and like systems could be helpful in attenuating large room peaks. Fortunately I don't have any egregious ones. It should leave nulls alone.

I think if it could reliable find the F3 of speakers with fourth order roll off, then a steep high pass filter employed at that point would be helpful.

It should not be OCD and try and correct all these minute deviations.

Now one of the best features of this system is to have BSC totally adjustable. Obviously since BSC is to correct the frequency error of going from half to full space radiation, it is going to be room and speaker position dependent. My experience has taught me that very small changes in BSC have a high auditory impact. I suspect especially that the way an awful lot of center speakers have to be positioned BSC is too high. I have found that BSC even slightly too high is a major cause of poor speech intelligibility.

I would say that this is a major argument for moving to active speakers and away from passives. For many reasons a more general move to active speakers would do more to improve audio quality across the board than anything else I can think of.

Lastly employing low Q speaker designs so you don't over excite room modes in the first place is a good starting point.

So in summary I can not see how Audyssey or any similar program is likely to improve most, or any systems for that matter. Certainly in my system it is highly deleterious for multiple reasons.

I encourage you all to not follow the herd. Try when sensible to set as many of your speakers as possible to large, and try bringing in the sub half an octave above F3 of at least the main speakers. Give your system a good evaluation without Audyssey. I suspect many and probably most will be in for a pleasant surprise.

 

[highfigh]

This is a good argument for having a dedicated room for music and home theater- the practice of trying to make a system work in a room that's used for anything else is not a good way to get the results needed, if realism is a goal in any small way.

Did you set the Audyssey mic at all of their recommended positions, and did you listen from, those positions, or just from the main seat? They're trying to create a large 'bubble' where the room's response has been reduced, as a way to expand "the best seat in the house".

I'd like to see what would happen if Audyssey and the rest used a binaural mic setup. If we were supposed to hear it with only one ear, we would only have one ear and the ability to locate the source of sounds would have meant the extinction of our specie a long time ago. We still need two ears for our pursuits, so I think they really need to go to a two mic setup. One mic is great for measuring, but we're listening.

 

[KEW]

The interesting thing is that Audyssey did not do much to flatten the FR as I expected it to.
Aside from bass frequencies which are so sensitive to room conditions, it does not seem like it would be a hard task to get the FR very close to flat (assuming the speakers do not have any extreme failings).

I guess I had the impression that Audyssey would single-mindedly tune the system to a close to flat (above 300Hz) FR. Whether this process would undermine other aspects of SQ (such as timing) is a different issue; however, I expected to see better looking FR curves after Audyssey!

So, it has been my policy to employ Audyssey for HT and use L + R Bypass for stereo (so only the subs see Audyssey EQ). I never really A-B'ed HT, but it sounds like I should try disabling Audyssey entirely!

 

[TLS Guy]

This is a good argument for having a dedicated room for music and home theater- the practice of trying to make a system work in a room that's used for anything else is not a good way to get the results needed, if realism is a goal in any small way.

Did you set the Audyssey mic at all of their recommended positions, and did you listen from, those positions, or just from the main seat? They're trying to create a large 'bubble' where the room's response has been reduced, as a way to expand "the best seat in the house".

I'd like to see what would happen if Audyssey and the rest used a binaural mic setup. If we were supposed to hear it with only one ear, we would only have one ear and the ability to locate the source of sounds would have meant the extinction of our specie a long time ago. We still need two ears for our pursuits, so I think they really need to go to a two mic setup. One mic is great for measuring, but we're listening.

Yes, I followed the instructions to the letter. I placed the mic at every seat location and between the two front seats as that was central.

I ran the program many, many times. The results of this awful system showed a very wide scatter. To be fair to it I posted its best efforts.

There is no glossing over the fact that not only are the measurements with Audyssey worse, but the auditory results far worse than the FR room curves would suggest. This suggests that this program is upsetting things outside of the FR domain. In my view this is almost certainly time.

I carefully included the impulse plots with the FR plots. You can see the timing of the reflections looking at the impulses with the reflections in the FR.

So Audyssey can correct the room and then the near filed response of the speakers is upset and the first arrival will be wrong, or it can make an attempt to correct for the time of the arrivals. This is almost certainly an impossible task. I would say it is impossible, which is why I strongly believe that Audyssey and its ilk are "fools gold."

In any event I will go on record as saying that the frequency correction parts of Audyssey has no place what so ever in a reference system like mine and probably not in any.

It is an accurate expensive tape measure. I can confirm that. Levels need cross checking and some likely modifying. Its choice of crossover is to be highly suspect.

Interestingly my older simpler version was better in the latter regard, and did set the global crossover to 60 Hz and set all speakers to large.

Luckily I have a very good sounding room, and this speaker system sounds awesome and incredibly life like. It really is better than a lot of seats in the concert hall.

One thing I did learn through all this is that my system of being able to adjust the BSC is a break through. Even very small errors in this parameter have outside audible impacts.

I concede that the adverse effects of Audyssey are much more likely to be revealed in classical program. First there is no true fame of reference for pop music and ambiance is avoided at recording and added later.
Classical music is largely recorded in large ambient spaces, and some like Gothic cathedrals highly ambient.

Anyhow here I don't use EQ just set up the speakers properly to have a textbook response when measured under accepted protocols. The front three are text book in that regard. The surrounds are older but still have a good response with the most major aberration being the 100 Hz centered ripple of the surrounds.

All speakers are robust and have no issues being set to large. They can take it.

The pop/ popular music engineers keep coming back, so the rig must be OK in that department also. There are a couple coming back next weekend.

I certainly don't need Audyssey which when engaged seem to present a curiously amorphous uninvolving presentation that is harsher than the FRs would suggest. It certainly downgrades this system in many significant ways. Not to be recommended.

 

[lovinthehd]

Whose instructions were you following to the letter? The Marantz' manual? You literally placed the mic in each seat location in the room? Assume you used a tripod or mic boom or similar to place the mic at ear level (TL;DR). FWIW Marantz is the one advising the crossover/large settings rather than Audyssey specifically (Audyssey has mentioned their recommendatyion would be all speakers set to "small" when using a sub, crossover of 80 to start; fyi Bypass L/R is also a manifestation of the avr manufacturer).

ps The graphic representations in the Marantz of eq are just approximations.

 

[TheWarrior]

Yes, I followed the instructions to the letter. I placed the mic at every seat location and between the two front seats as that was central.

I ran the program many, many times. The results of this awful system showed a very wide scatter. To be fair to it I posted its best efforts.

There is no glossing over the fact that not only are the measurements with Audyssey worse, but the auditory results far worse than the FR room curves would suggest. This suggests that this program is upsetting things outside of the FR domain. In my view this is almost certainly time.

I carefully included the impulse plots with the FR plots. You can see the timing of the reflections looking at the impulses with the reflections in the FR.

So Audyssey can correct the room and then the near filed response of the speakers is upset and the first arrival will be wrong, or it can make an attempt to correct for the time of the arrivals. This is almost certainly an impossible task. I would say it is impossible, which is why I strongly believe that Audyssey and its ilk are "fools gold."

In any event I will go on record as saying that the frequency correction parts of Audyssey has no place what so ever in a reference system like mine and probably not in any.

It is an accurate expensive tape measure. I can confirm that. Levels need cross checking and some likely modifying. Its choice of crossover is to be highly suspect.

Interestingly my older simpler version was better in the latter regard, and did set the global crossover to 60 Hz and set all speakers to large.

Luckily I have a very good sounding room, and this speaker system sounds awesome and incredibly life like. It really is better than a lot of seats in the concert hall.

One thing I did learn through all this is that my system of being able to adjust the BSC is a break through. Even very small errors in this parameter have outside audible impacts.

I concede that the adverse effects of Audyssey are much more likely to be revealed in classical program. First there is no true fame of reference for pop music and ambiance is avoided at recording and added later.
Classical music is largely recorded in large ambient spaces, and some like Gothic cathedrals highly ambient.

Anyhow here I don't use EQ just set up the speakers properly to have a textbook response when measured under accepted protocols. The front three are text book in that regard. The surrounds are older but still have a good response with the most major aberration being the 100 Hz centered ripple of the surrounds.

All speakers are robust and have no issues being set to large. They can take it.

The pop/ popular music engineers keep coming back, so the rig must be OK in that department also. There are a couple coming back next weekend.

I certainly don't need Audyssey which when engaged seem to present a curiously amorphous uninvolving presentation that is harsher than the FRs would suggest. It certainly downgrades this system in many significant ways. Not to be recommended.

Thank you for such a detailed write up! KEW and I had discussed doing something similar at one point, but I just couldn't justify spending the time on something my ears were so thoroughly convinced of - my speakers sounded worse!

An Omni directional mic in a room of unknown shape and size with unknown loudspeakers using only listening position measurements is not a solution. I've referenced Floyd Toole's 'Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproducing Systems' more times than I can count. Despite the facts, people want a simple solution to set up of the ever increasing quantity of speakers manufacturers offer to power from a single box receiver.

Be sure to let us know when you install your custom quarter-wave Atmos speakers!

 

[TLS Guy]

Whose instructions were you following to the letter? The Marantz' manual? You literally placed the mic in each seat location in the room? Assume you used a tripod or mic boom or similar to place the mic at ear level (TL;DR). FWIW Marantz is the one advising the crossover/large settings rather than Audyssey specifically (Audyssey has mentioned their recommendatyion would be all speakers set to "small" when using a sub, crossover of 80 to start; fyi Bypass L/R is also a manifestation of the avr manufacturer).

ps The graphic representations in the Marantz of eq are just approximations.

Microphone stands and booms are something not in short supply round here. Remember I used to record large scale concerts in big venues for radio broadcast as well as make LPs and CDs.

The graphic representations may be approximate, but my room curves are real.

I documented good performance form my speakers, with the front three having textbook response.
Ausyssey's curves are worse than my settings with no Eq. I should mention that I took a lot of readings, and having ALL speakers set to large gives by far the best low end room curves.
Anytime you can get rid of a crossover or even half a crossover it is a very good day.

I did this properly, don't shoot the messenger. Audyssey is not fit for purpose and worse than useless. You should all disable it.

 

[lovinthehd]

Microphone stands and booms are something not in short supply round here. Remember I used to record large scale concerts in big venues for radio broadcast as well as make LPs and CDs.

The graphic representations may be approximate, but my room curves are real.

I documented good performance form my speakers, with the front three having textbook response.
Ausyssey's curves are worse than my settings with no Eq. I should mention that I took a lot of readings, and having ALL speakers set to large gives by far the best low end room curves.
Anytime you can get rid of a crossover or even half a crossover it is a very good day.

I did this properly, don't shoot the messenger. Audyssey is not fit for purpose and worse than useless. You should all disable it.

Just checking details, consistency if anything, in comparing with others' experiences. I figured you didn't have any issue with mic placement/tools....

OTOH you took such care with your speakers/rooms previously makes you an unlikely candidate for Audyssey to be of benefit...

 

[TLS Guy]

Thank you for such a detailed write up! KEW and I had discussed doing something similar at one point, but I just couldn't justify spending the time on something my ears were so thoroughly convinced of - my speakers sounded worse!

An Omni directional mic in a room of unknown shape and size with unknown loudspeakers using only listening position measurements is not a solution. I've referenced Floyd Toole's 'Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproducing Systems' more times than I can count. Despite the facts, people want a simple solution to set up of the ever increasing quantity of speakers manufacturers offer to power from a single box receiver.

Be sure to let us know when you install your custom quarter-wave Atmos speakers!

Thank you for that kind response. As I said I have never had Audyssey Eq my system except to see what it did and I have never liked what it did. It is just too good to be true and it isn't true. I think the concept is fatally flawed as you say. A cheap plastic unbalanced microphone connected by a cable thinner then a piece of spaghetti is not going to get you to audio nirvana whatever it is connected to.

I don't think I will go for Atmos. There are quite enough speakers round the room already. I just watched a recreation of the coronation of King George II from the chapel at the Palace of Versailles. It was given by the King's Consort. It was just spectacular with 17th century trumpets all over the place. The space was really well created in this room.
It is on Medici TV because it was 333 years since the birth of Handel last week.

 

[yepimonfire]

As someone who has had consistently terrible results with audyssey, if agree that it usually does more harm than good. My experience with it is similar. It applies unnecessary correction blindly and ruins the already flat response of my speakers.

Regarding crossovers to subs, I'd also agree that lower is better, assuming the speakers can handle it and the room is cooperating. Often the room does not cooperate, speaker placement is usually fixed in order to provide proper imaging, and this can potentially lead to poor low end response. I'd rather compromise with a higher xover and proper sub placement resulting in a flat bass response than have wild peaks.

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk

 

[WaynePflughaupt]

Yes, I followed the instructions to the letter. I placed the mic at every seat location and between the two front seats as that was central.

Wayne Myers (AudiocRaver) at HT Shack has done extensive testing of Audyssey and other systems such as Dirac, and had determined that they work best when using only a single mic location, not multiples, at least from a soundstage aspect. I suspect that the multiple mic location protocol leads to the system over-equalizing (that OCD thing you mentioned).

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

 

[TLS Guy]

Wayne Myers (AudiocRaver) at HT Shack has done extensive testing of Audyssey and other systems such as Dirac, and had determined that they work best when using only a single mic location, not multiples, at least from a soundstage aspect. I suspect that the multiple mic location protocol leads to the system over-equalizing (that OCD thing you mentioned).

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Well after the marathon of the last few weeks, I'm not inclined to go through all this again. It certainly will only make this lovely system awful what ever the mic locations.

The fact is that if you have speakers that have a really good measurements then any system that skews the response or mucks about in the time domain will be a downgrade.

I also don't accept the fact that you only hear the room in the lower octaves. That is nonsense, and a reflection that high Q speaker alignments are in the majority, in fact rampant. So much so that very few people have heard really accurate reproduction from speakers.

I have just put of an SCACD from the Vanska Sibelius cycle recorded in Orchestra Hall Minneapolis. I have heard this in the hall with the same performers a number of times.

I can tell what I'm hearing sounds far more like Orchestra Hall than my room.

 

[yepimonfire]

Well after the marathon of the last few weeks, I'm not inclined to go through all this again. It certainly will only make this lovely system awful what ever the mic locations.

The fact is that if you have speakers that have a really good measurements then any system that skews the response or mucks about in the time domain will be a downgrade.

I also don't accept the fact that you only hear the room in the lower octaves. That is nonsense, and a reflection that high Q speaker alignments are in the majority, in fact rampant. So much so that very few people have heard really accurate reproduction from speakers.

I have just put of an SCACD from the Vanska Sibelius cycle recorded in Orchestra Hall Minneapolis. I have heard this in the hall with the same performers a number of times.

I can tell what I'm hearing sounds far more like Orchestra Hall than my room.

What do you mean only hear the room at lower octaves or low q speakers? A low q sub will still excite room modes, the only way it wouldn't is if the sub begins rolling off by an equal amount at the rooms modal frequency, effectively behaving as a sort of acoustic eq. Even then you will still get ringing in the time domain that's likely to result in sloppy sounding bass.

A good majority of speakers are designed with a qtc of. 7, which is neither under nor over damped, a lower q simply results in a more gradual roll off at the expense of f3.

EQ has been shown to correct both time and frequency domain errors below the transition frequency where the response aberrations are minimum phase. If one uses multiple subs in order to achieve an even response throughout the room and eqs inaccuracies out, both the ringing and response peaks are smoothed out.

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk

 

[TLS Guy]

What do you mean only hear the room at lower octaves or low q speakers? A low q sub will still excite room modes, the only way it wouldn't is if the sub begins rolling off by an equal amount at the rooms modal frequency, effectively behaving as a sort of acoustic eq. Even then you will still get ringing in the time domain that's likely to result in sloppy sounding bass.

A good majority of speakers are designed with a qtc of. 7, which is neither under nor over damped, a lower q simply results in a more gradual roll off at the expense of f3.

EQ has been shown to correct both time and frequency domain errors below the transition frequency where the response aberrations are minimum phase. If one uses multiple subs in order to achieve an even response throughout the room and eqs inaccuracies out, both the ringing and response peaks are smoothed out.

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk

All I can tell you is that low Q speakers sound different from average 0.7 and higher than that in room, even with the same F3. That is why aperiodically damped TLs that are non resonant sound different and have a very different quality of bass to other speakers. This have been known for years and was the whole reason and interest in the research group at Radford on TL development back in the sixties.

In the same room a low Q speaker will deliver a well recorded drum beat as a thwack and it sounds realistic. The higher Q speaker will present it as more of a boom. I don't have experience placing subs all round a room and can't say I want to.

 

[highfigh]

Microphone stands and booms are something not in short supply round here. Remember I used to record large scale concerts in big venues for radio broadcast as well as make LPs and CDs.

The graphic representations may be approximate, but my room curves are real.

I documented good performance form my speakers, with the front three having textbook response.
Ausyssey's curves are worse than my settings with no Eq. I should mention that I took a lot of readings, and having ALL speakers set to large gives by far the best low end room curves.
Anytime you can get rid of a crossover or even half a crossover it is a very good day.

I did this properly, don't shoot the messenger. Audyssey is not fit for purpose and worse than useless. You should all disable it.

I doubt Audyssey, MCACC, YPAO and the other systems were intended for speakers such as yours, more likely they designed them to work with small speakers of the sub/satellite or sub/bookshelf type. I installed a system with Polk sub/satellite speakers and after I ran Audyssey, it sounded better than without. I have done the same with YPAO and small speakers with similar results, but haven't used it extensively when the speakers were well-designed and I could manually correct issues.

 

[highfigh]

What do you mean only hear the room at lower octaves or low q speakers?

He wrote "I also don't accept the fact that you only hear the room in the lower octaves.", not that he believes it.

 

[highfigh]

All I can tell you is that low Q speakers sound different from average 0.7 and higher than that in room, even with the same F3. That is why aperiodically damped TLs that are non resonant sound different and have a very different quality of bass to other speakers. This have been known for years and was the whole reason and interest in the research group at Radford on TL development back in the sixties.

In the same room a low Q speaker will deliver a well recorded drum beat as a thwack and it sounds realistic. The higher Q speaker will present it as more of a boom. I don't have experience placing subs all round a room and can't say I want to.

But a bass drum played through speakers with Q of >.707 doesn't ring as well as a real drum (depending on whether IT was damped)- sometimes, highly damped is too well damped, but overall, I agree that lower Q is better.

 

[MrBoat]

In the same room a low Q speaker will deliver a well recorded drum beat as a thwack and it sounds realistic. The higher Q speaker will present it as more of a boom. I don't have experience placing subs all round a room and can't say I want to.

Shouldn't have to place subs all around the room and there are very few instances where it is practical, even in dedicated HT rooms. That's an artifact of inefficient spaces and the blessed open floor plan. Even the human voice in general conversation sounds like crap in these spaces and takes extra effort and the speech is emphasized incorrectly.

Often times, we would either have to repeat ourselves a lot or walk up on the other person face-to-face. So either we adjust our systems to some kind of off averages, or listen near field style.

In many instances, the near field tactic is the easiest answer for the space being so acoustically wrong, otherwise. I'd rather do that than have subwoofers in odd places all about the room like.

 

[TLS Guy]

I doubt Audyssey, MCACC, YPAO and the other systems were intended for speakers such as yours, more likely they designed them to work with small speakers of the sub/satellite or sub/bookshelf type. I installed a system with Polk sub/satellite speakers and after I ran Audyssey, it sounded better than without. I have done the same with YPAO and small speakers with similar results, but haven't used it extensively when the speakers were well-designed and I could manually correct issues.

I suppose you can get lucky sometimes! Did you save any FR traces?

 

[TLS Guy]

Shouldn't have to place subs all around the room and there are very few instances where it is practical, even in dedicated HT rooms. That's an artifact of inefficient spaces and the blessed open floor plan. Even the human voice in general conversation sounds like crap in these spaces and takes extra effort and the speech is emphasized incorrectly.

Often times, we would either have to repeat ourselves a lot or walk up on the other person face-to-face. So either we adjust our systems to some kind of off averages, or listen near field style.

In many instances, the near field tactic is the easiest answer for the space being so acoustically wrong, otherwise. I'd rather do that than have subwoofers in odd places all about the room like.

I agree with that. However if a room does not have good speech clarity with real people talking, then I think it is a lot cause. I would not install a sound system in it.