Audyssey killing my HT sound?

[Pogre]

The "Dialog Level Adjust" has been renamed to "Center Level Adjust" in newer Marantz/Denon receivers. In the high end Denons (Marantz as well I think) there is a "Dialog Enhancer" that only increases the SPL for some frequencies, and there is a thread/post about this in this forum this spring/summer I think.

When I press the "Options" button I get a "channel level adjust" Option and can do the "center channel level adjust" from there. Kind of perplexing. Modern avr's seem to have 3 different ways to do almost the same thing for every setting...

 

[Trell]

When I press the "Options" button I get a "channel level adjust" Option and can do the "center channel level adjust" from there. Kind of perplexing. Modern avr's seem to have 3 different ways to do almost the same thing for every setting...

Yeah, it is unnecessarily confusing, so I think the rename is a good thing.

 

[fast fred]

Yes my Avr shows center level adjust

 

[Auditor55]

Would you know if you love the taste of a steak? Or do you need someone to teach you?

Would you know if you love the taste of a drink? Or do you need someone to teach you?

Would you know what sound you prefer? Do you know what sounds good to you?

I just want to know which speaker YOU like better. No college degrees needed. No training needed. Just tell me what YOU PREFER.

In all due respect, you must know that comparing steaks to being trained to listen audible artifices, isn't a very good analogy. If I told you steaks had carcinogens in them that you could taste (detect), if you know what they taste like, you would want to know what those carcinogens taste like.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

In all due respect, you must know that comparing steaks to being trained to listen audible artifices, isn't a very good analogy. If I told you steaks had carcinogens in them that you could taste (detect),if you know what they taste like, you would want to know what those carcinogens taste like.

All we’re talking about is whether your brain will know if something sounds GOOD, not identify a carcinogen or ingredients.

Will your brain know if something sounds good?

I think my daughter was able to tell me which speakers she preferred when she was 8 years old.

 

[Jon AA]

I don’t see how that graph shows XT32 (green) does better than XT (blue)

There’s a big trough in XT32 between 30-70Hz. And then after that, it looks similar for both XT and XT32.

I think XT32 does worse than XT or about the same.

You're reading it wrong. That's not a measurement of sound coming from a speaker. That's a measurement of the preamp signal going to the speaker--showing you the corrections Audyssey made.

In the frequency range many say shouldn't be EQ'd at all--the higher frequencies--XT is processing the signal with hundreds of filters. XT32 is only applying a few broad, smooth, tone-shaping corrections.

In the frequency range nearly everybody (except some stubborn audiophiles ) agree will need the most EQ from virtually any system in any room--the lower frequencies--XT is hardly doing anything. XT32 on the other hand, is applying many high resolution corrections to this region.

It's basically the complete opposite philosophy of what room EQ should concentrate on correcting the most.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

All we’re talking about is whether your brain will know if something sounds GOOD, not identify a carcinogen or ingredients.

Will your brain know if something sounds good?

I think my daughter was able to tell me which speakers she preferred when she was 8 years old.

FWIW, I don’t believe they’re training their people how to hear what sounds “good”, or how to develop a preference. I believe the training is to learn to listen for certain characters that loudspeakers exhibit, like “honkyness” or siblance, or muddy bass or, ringing, etc, while also learning how to listen for tonal accuracy, smooth bass and clean treble.
Of course anyone will have a preference, but isn’t it possible that preference can be due to very limited exposure to something “better” or more “accurate”. How many times have we seen someone’s “preference” for tubby bloated subwoofers, while totally telling everyone they’re great. THEN, they get a real one. Suddenly they hear things they didn’t even know about, and can’t stand their fart boxes anymore!
So yes, your brain will know if something sounds good, TO YOU. But what if you were shown how to listen deeper, and more critically?

 

[sholling]

I'll take the unpopular position and say that in a difficult room Audyssey can help a lot. On the other hand if you have nearly perfect acoustics it won't be of much help and if you get a bad Audyssey mic it's your worst audio enemy. Been there and been screwed by a bad mic back when a whole huge batch of bad mics were released several years ago. Your acoustics may not benefit for Audyssey or your ear may be so used to non-adjusted audio that Audyssey corrections sound awful to you.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

FWIW, I don’t believe they’re training their people how to hear what sounds “good”, or how to develop a preference. I believe the training is to learn to listen for certain characters that loudspeakers exhibit, like “honkyness” or siblance, or muddy bass or, ringing, etc, while also learning how to listen for tonal accuracy, smooth bass and clean treble.
Of course anyone will have a preference, but isn’t it possible that preference can be due to very limited exposure to something “better” or more “accurate”. How many times have we seen someone’s “preference” for tubby bloated subwoofers, while totally telling everyone they’re great. THEN, they get a real one. Suddenly they hear things they didn’t even know about, and can’t stand their fart boxes anymore!

So yes, your brain will know if something sounds good, TO YOU. But what if you were shown how to listen deeper, and more critically?

For the pure absolute purpose of preferring one speaker over another, why does any of that matter?

If the study is about identifying certain sounds, that’s another story. But if you want to know what sounds PLEASING to people, why put ideas about certain “sound characteristics”?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Here is a comparison between YPAO FLAT (blue) vs THROUGH (red).

FLAT (blue) looks much better. But THROUGH sounds much better to me.

Here is MANUAL with NO EQ from 80Hz-20kHz, but manual bass boost from 15Hz-80Hz. It doesn’t look the best (big 40Hz bass peak),but it sure sounds the best to me.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

You're reading it wrong. That's not a measurement of sound coming from a speaker. That's a measurement of the preamp signal going to the speaker--showing you the corrections Audyssey made.

In the frequency range many say shouldn't be EQ'd at all--the higher frequencies--XT is processing the signal with hundreds of filters. XT32 is only applying a few broad, smooth, tone-shaping corrections.

In the frequency range nearly everybody (except some stubborn audiophiles ) agree will need the most EQ from virtually any system in any room--the lower frequencies--XT is hardly doing anything. XT32 on the other hand, is applying many high resolution corrections to this region.

It's basically the complete opposite philosophy of what room EQ should concentrate on correcting the most.

Shouldn’t we look at the END RESULTS (ACTUAL Speaker RESPONSE),not some theoretical processes?

What good are theoretical processes if the actual end results don’t produce the best actual responses?

 

[Jon AA]

Would you know if you love the taste of a steak? Or do you need someone to teach you?

We can only speculate. But it does cast a few doubts about their "studies" and their "science".

This is really silliness. For those who are not knowledge averse, there is no reason to speculate. We can read about the testing, we can read about why it is done, we can read about how it is done. We can read studies that show the "trained listeners" and "untrained listeners" prefer the exact same speakers in the exact same order (the "trained listeners" are just better at it which makes the studies go faster--which answers your question of why it is done). And if that's not enough, we can take the training ourselves (it's available online).

Nobody I know of who has actually done that (and is therefore speaking from a place of knowledge) has come away saying it's all a course on "how to like the sound of Harman speakers over other speakers."

Really, the answers are all there and available to you. If you don't want to know them, that's fine. But that doesn't exempt you from being corrected when your "speculation" is unfounded and way off base.

 

[Jon AA]

Shouldn’t look at the END RESULTS (ACTUAL RESPONSE), not some theoretical processes?

What good are theoretical processes if the actual end results don’t produce the best actual responses?

Those are actual measurements. Nothing theoretical about them. They aren't measuring speakers because that was not the purpose of that measurement.

Here is MANUAL with NO EQ from 80Hz-20kHz, but manual bass boost from 15Hz-80Hz. It doesn’t look the best (big 40Hz bass peak), but it sure sounds the best to me.

So you've never actually listened to a good bass response on your system in your room? How do you know you don't like icecream if you've never tried it?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

1.Those are actual measurements.

2. So you've never actually listened to a good bass response on your system in your room?

Some people want to make this audio hobby seem so complex like surgery or some medical treatment. Please.

1. I don’t care about some measurements from the preamp. We don’t HEAR the preamp, do we? We actually hear the SPEAKERS. So let’s see measurements from the speakers that we hear. Not from preamps that we don’t hear until it goes through the AMP first, and then the Speakers.

2. Have you been to professional sound venues and heard good bass response?

Have you been to professional Atmos, IMAX, THX, and other commercial cineplex throughout the country and been to high-end audio dealers and heard good bass response?

That’s what good bass response sounds like.

We all attempt to create sound (and bass) in our homes that is as good as the high-end professional venues.

We want bass to sound like the best high-end professional cineplex.

That’s how we know what real good bass response sounds like.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

For those who are not knowledge averse

I have a bachelors degree and doctorate degree. I think I’ve had my shares of reading and studying KNOWLEDGE that are actually important to me.

I don’t really need someone telling me how I should listen and focus on certain sounds that are more chocolaty or sweet or airy.

I don’t care to make it complex when it’s really simple. I already deal with true complex life and death situations at work. This is a hobby for entertainment.

You listen to real life music in professional concerts and other professional venues throughout your life. You know what sounds good to you. You don’t need anyone telling you what sounds good.

 

[KEW]

That's exactly right. They were done a big favor in that study. As a result, they completely changed the way their RC works with XT32. Here's a comparison somebody did between XT and XT32, measuring the pre-outs:

View attachment 30918


As you can see, XT (blue line) does diddly in the low frequencies, where EQ is needed the most. Then it goes nuts in the high frequencies, trying to correct hundreds of tiny little dips and bumps (which mostly wouldn't be audible anyway) most likely only making the sound worse.

XT32 on the other hand, goes after the bass frequencies with much higher resolution giving it a much better chance of providing a smooth room response at those frequencies. At higher frequencies, it transitions to much broader, smoother "tone control" type changes. Those are unlikely to harm the sound of good speakers (with smooth directivity curves) with the correct target curve (though, determining that is obviously the hard part) and could certainly make them sound "better" in a preference related way for individuals (a really good speaker that's just a bit bright could have the highs brought down a bit, etc). I have no doubt XT32 with a good custom target curve appropriate for the speakers being tested would do quite well in such a study today.

The App really unlocks the capability of Audyssey XT32 to the point the end result is largely dependent upon the person using it, not limitations of the software itself. I really wish they'd make it more user friendly by including a few different "Global Target Curves" that may get people closer to a good end result more quickly and easily. But those results are obtainable with the current App, it just takes a little effort.

It's unfortunate, but I'd guess about 99% of people who are dissatisfied with XT32 did not go through this exercise. Of course, until a couple of years ago it was impossible without paying for the Pro version so it isn't necessarily their fault.

Wow!
Thanks for posting this!
I was always disappointed that Harman did this study with an earlier form of Audyssey, but had no idea Audyssey had changed their approach to room correction so much as this reflects!
It is great to see that Audyssey took the criticisms from Harman to heart and changed the program so radically!

However, I am at a loss to understand what you are saying about "a good custom target curve appropriate for the speakers being tested"! Can you elaborate or link to a good discussion of what/how you would determine such a curve for a given speaker?
TIA!

 

[KEW]

I don’t see how that graph shows XT32 (green) does better than XT (blue)

These are the pre-outs for a frequency sweep of the same speakers in the same room, the only change is which version of Audyssey!
Without room correction, they would be flat.
Consequently, any deviations from flat reflect the corrections being made. So if there is a big dip in the bass on this graph (like at 50Hz), we would presume that Audyssey measured a large spike at that frequency and attenuated the signal to compensate for it.

Thus, comparing the curves for XT32 and XT, we see that XT did very little with low frequencies, while XT32 was fairly aggressive at certain frequencies.
We also see that XT was very busy "micro-managing" the upper frequencies, while XT32 was much more "laid-back", applying gentle corrections across a broader frequency range.
Overall, this shows that Audyssey rewrote the philosophy of their room correction between the release of XT and XT32.
Generally, we recognize that correction of bass is very important due to the significant effects of the room below the Schrodinger frequency.
The argument of which is better is certainly valid, however, one obvious take away is that the study from Harman criticizing RoomEQ is not very well established for XT32 which is such a radically different product.

In your specific case, you have very good speakers and (I presume) some room treatments, or at least a room furnished to prevent it being overly dead or alive. You have also performed some corrections in the bass using your PEQ. I don't know if you have fine tuned it with the aid of REW yet, but I could see how XT32 would be of little or no benefit (and certainly could make things worse). Audyssey is not really targeting a setup like yours. They are looking at the large majority of home installation (where the most convenient location of teh sofa determines where everything else sits) and giving them a 20 minute process to assist in improving their SQ , at not much of a price penalty (especially compared to when XT32 was introduced).
Certainly anyone willing to use miniDSP and REW doesn't need Audyssey (although we have had cases where people liked the result of XT32 after their miniDSP corrections).

It would be very nice if Harman updated their test. I suspect one or two of their people have done a small test among themselves out of intellectual curiosity, but Harman does not appear interested in investing the funding for another formal test.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

These are the pre-outs for a frequency sweep of the same speakers in the same room, the only change is which version of Audyssey!
Without room correction they would be essentially flat.
Consequently, any deviations from flat reflect the corrections being made. So if there is a big dip in the bass on this graph, we would presume that Audyssey measured a large spike at that frequency and attenuated the signal to compensate for it.
Thus, comparing the curves for XT32 and XT, we see that XT did very little with low frequencies, while XT32 was fairly aggressive at certain frequencies.
We also see that XT was very busy "micro-managing" the upper frequencies, while XT32 was much more "laid-back", applying gentle corrections across a broader frequency range.
Overall, this shows that Audyssey rewrote the philosophy of their room correction between the release of XT and XT32.
Generally, we recognize that correction of bass is very important due to the significant effects of the room below the Schrodinger frequency of the room.
The argument of which is better is certainly valuable, however, one obvious take away is that the study from Harman criticizing Audyssey is not very well established for XT32 which is such a radically different product.

In your specific case, you have very good speakers and (I presume) some room treatments, or at least a room furnished to prevent it being overly dead or alive. You have also performed some corrections in the bass using your PEQ. I don't know if you have fine tuned it with the aid of REW yet, but I could see how XT32 would be of little or no benefit (and certainly could make things worse). Audyssey is not really targeting a setup like yours. They are looking at the large majority of home installation (where the most convenient location of teh sofa determines where everything else sits) and giving them a 20 minute process to assist in improving their SQ , at not much of a price penalty (especially compared to when XT32 was introduced).
Certainly anyone willing to use miniDSP and REW doesn't need Audyssey (although we have had cases where people liked the result of XT32 after their miniDSP corrections).

It would be very nice if Harman updated their test. I suspect one or two of their people have done a small test among themselves out of intellectual curiosity, but Harman is not interested in investing the money on a formal test.

I see what you’re saying, Kurt.

I think most of us have talked about Room Correction over the years and we conclude pretty much the same - they can help some cases, but not all.

Another huge debate we’ve had over the years is whether the flatter responses actually translated to better subjective preferred sound.

I can see that THROUGH and MANUAL had the worst responses compared to FLAT and NATURAL. Yet, when I listen to both Natural and Flat, something seems to sound “off”, meaning that they don’t sound the way I’m used to hearing them either in real life or other professional venue.

When I listen to Through and Manual w/o EQ, it sounds great.

So just because any room EQ produces a flatter response does not guarantee the results will sound better subjectively. It could sound better, but no guarantee.

 

[lovinthehd]

I wouldn't use the graphics in Audyssey as definitive, they're at best approximations. Measure if you really want to measure. Preference can be all over the place, as well as all those goofy Yamaha terms.

 

[fast fred]

So, weird thing. I keep hearing I should turn dynamic volume to off but instead I turned it to heavy and voila the vocals are more clear and coherent!

I also lowered the front right and front left down and bumped the center to +3

So far so good!