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

S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
I think Audyssey is only good for correcting really bad resonances, ie. severe speaker flaws. If your speakers are good, Audyssey doesn't have much to do. There is no sense in fooling around with reflected sounds as well. Audyssey is a band-aid for bad speakers. I think it is useful below the transition frequency, but only for a single listening position, and only for cutting peaks, but when it tries to boost nulls, that can do more harm that good. I don't use Audyssey or anything like it.

TLS Guy, you ought to look at Dirac Live. It is room correction that is more interested in correcting for time-related problems and so it really goes to work on the impulse response, as opposed to Audyssey which only concerns itself with the frequency domain. It reduces reflections and places more emphasis on direct sound. In cleaning up the impulse response, that consequently causes improvements in the frequency response. From what little I know of Trinnov is that it acts similarly as well. Here are some white papers on Dirac: here and here
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
I think Audyssey is only good for correcting really bad resonances, ie. severe speaker flaws. If your speakers are good, Audyssey doesn't have much to do. There is no sense in fooling around with reflected sounds as well. Audyssey is a band-aid for bad speakers. I think it is useful below the transition frequency, but only for a single listening position, and only for cutting peaks, but when it tries to boost nulls, that can do more harm that good. I don't use Audyssey or anything like it.

TLS Guy, you ought to look at Dirac Live. It is room correction that is more interested in correcting for time-related problems and so it really goes to work on the impulse response, as opposed to Audyssey which only concerns itself with the frequency domain. It reduces reflections and places more emphasis on direct sound. In cleaning up the impulse response, that consequently causes improvements in the frequency response. From what little I know of Trinnov is that it acts similarly as well. Here are some white papers on Dirac: here and here
Thank you for that post and those links.

I readily admit I had not looked closely at Dirac. As you know I think we have a long way to go before any of these programs should even be on offer. The downsides are just too great.

I did find the article interesting.

The real guts of the issue is on pages 4 and 5. So I'm going to paste them here.

{This has some important implications for sound equalization. When we read our magnitude response estimates, we use a very simple estimate of the perceived spectrum, completely suppressing the concept of time. For example, take a minimum-phase impulse response and reverse it. The former starts at time zero and decays with some time constant until it dies out; the latter has instead a substantial pre-ringing but no post-ringing. Now all research that has been carried out on human perception of transients say that pre-echoes and post-echoes sound completely different to us. Yet, the magnitude responses are identical. Of course, this is also manifested if we say something and then play it back in reverse. Both samples have the same Fourier magnitude responses. This illustrates that phase responses, or impulse responses, do affect the perception of sound, even for a monaural source. There is obviously some threshold of how phase sensitive we are, but the literature on this matter (which is extensive, starting from the 1930’s) has concluded that this threshold, or integration time-constant, is adaptive and varies with what we listen to. What we can say for sure is that we do hear absolute phase but that the higher the frequencies the less sensitive we are (obviously, as the wavelengths become very short and the physics of wave propagation dictates that very little relevant information can be transmitted acoustically at high frequencies due to the chaotic behavior of high-frequency acoustic transfer functions). This implies that a good equalizer needs to consider also phase, not just magnitude. An example will show this point more clearly. Consider a loudspeaker standing in a room. Mr A measures impulse responses in a certain listening volume and finds to his dismay that the magnitude response has a substantial broad dip at some rather low frequency, say 300 Hz, in all positions. He calibrates a peak filter and fills up the hole in the magnitude response, which is then confirmed by measurements. Enter Mr B. Mr B is a musician and he listens to the equalized system. “It sounds horrible! What have you done to the system!? It sounds all swollen and strange!” Mr A becomes nervous, as Mr B is an important customer, and calls his trusted friend Mr C. Mr C answers: “Ah, yes of course. The dip was really due to reflections. You should never boost any dip, because they are typically due to reflections.” So Mr A removes his equalizer filter and lets Mr B listen again. Mr B, however, is still not happy. “It is better, but it’s not good. There is something hollow about the sound.” At this time Mrs D enters the conversation. She’s been listening, sitting quietly in a corner of the room, and says: “Mr A was wrong because he forgot about the time domain. Looking only at the magnitude of the Fourier transform and interpreting it as strongly related to our concept of frequencies, he thought that he could boost that region and obtain better sound. The problem is that he uses minimum-phase filters and consequently adds energy at that frequency early in time. But if we only look at the direct wave there is no hole to be filled in the frequency response. The hole never exists if we look at a short window at any time.” Mr B frowns: “So Mr C was right to say that we cannot do anything about it. But if that’s the case, why do I still hear a strange sounding oboe on my recording?” Mrs D looks sternly at him: ”Mr C was wrong too. The problem is due to the time domain properties; the reflection causes the problem and it can only be corrected for by a time-domain approach. If we design a filter that reduces the reflection, you will end up with the interesting result that the hole will be gone and the oboe will sound more natural.” “But,” Mrs D adds, “don’t take this example as evidence that you can always correct dips this way! In this case it was possible, because all positions experienced the same problem.”}

Of interest is his view that time/phase matter. Also that individuals vary in their ability to be bothered by these aberrations. I agree that this detection is something that can be leaned over time. I know I am very sensitive to this issue. This is probably why I am highly adverse to most speakers with large driver to driver time shifts.

As you know I try and maximize acoustic response in crossover design and minimize the use of filters keeping electrical orders to the minimum to get a flat FR.

I put huge store in a speakers impulse response. As you know I demonstrated really superior impulse response in my speakers. That is why I included the impulse responses in my plots in this series. You may have noted that Audyssey disturbed the impulse response more than FR, which it also failed to improve. What is even more interesting is that the damage to the impulse response of the reflections is greater than the upset to the direct response.

As the author points out equalizing with one mic position might improve a sweet spot but downgrade the rest. That is basically why I did not do it. In this theater every seat is a good seat with slight increase in warmth in the rear because it is near the back wall.

I can't begin to tell how absolutely awful this system sounds with Audyssey engaged. I'm sure it is in large part due to deranged time/phase relationships. It exhibits all the bad effects the author points out.

Audyssey does its damage ahead of the processor, which is why it totally destroys the effects of multi channel listening, especially Dolby Plx2, which I like a lot. When engaged front row sounds like the orchestra seats and the back row the balcony.

I do think that the author has minimized some of his problems, especially ringing, and I would say even minimal pre ringing would negate a good result.

I don't think any of these programs are suitable for widespread application at present, if they ever will be.

I think this discussion I have generated is one we have needed for a long time. I think most members probably assume that Audyssey is improving their systems, should be part of the set up and used. In fact far more likely than not it is degrading their systems. Just the fact that it tries to correct nulls is reason enough that it should never have seen the light of day, and I eluded to that in my analysis.

A survey of who uses Audyssey would be a good start. Everybody who is using Audyssey should give their systems a prolonged listen without it.
 
Y

yepimonfire

Audioholic Samurai
@MrBoat

Its been pretty well established in research done by harman, Geddes, etc, that 2+ sub woofers spread throughout a room in strategic locations gives a much better result than a single sub or no sub at all.

The only way to avoid serious modal interactions is to have a large enough space that has the strongest first axial mode far below the systems playback capabilities. Secondly, even in the best of rooms, a single sub or speaker, combined with the listening position, will always result in some sort of peak or dip below the rooms transition frequency, this can largely be remedied using multiple subwoofers, which destructively and constructively interact to reduce the rooms effects on the response.

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I suppose you can get lucky sometimes! Did you save any FR traces?
No- if I had any idea that this kind of thread would happen, I might have. I didn't expect miracles, but the improvements were there. Without Audyssey, they were nothing to brag about.

I run mine flat and, while it doesn't reproduce the bottom half of the lowest octave, everything above about 32Hz is great- human voice is among the best I have heard and mid-bass sounds very realistic, although I did spend a good amount of time with speaker positioning and some room treatments to cure the low end notch. In the Den of the house where I used mostly Dynaudio speakers, I left it flat, too.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
A survey of who uses Audyssey would be a good start. Everybody who is using Audyssey should give their systems a prolonged listen without it.
It would be interesting to discuss this with the people behind these EQ systems, to learn exactly what kinds of rooms and speakers they're trying to fix, I doubt they tried to deal with extremely high quality speaker sound or rooms that have been treated for specific issues, but I could be wrong.

When I used AVRs, I found that I was happy when I adjusted the distance in Speaker Configuration. I noticed a long time ago that I could hear the difference when the distance was adjusted by .1' increments, but if the speakers weren't already in the best spot, nothing I did made it sound as good as when I finally found their best position.

If people would let us, designing rooms with non-parallel walls and correct proportions would help a lot.
 
E

Epetti

Audioholic Intern
I've found very good results with the Audyssey app which allows you to specify the frequency range in which to apply the correction. I've been using Audyssey for 300 Hz and down where room modes are a bigger issue and it has really flattened out the response. But above that it's turned off. This based off recommendations from various forum posts and the Toole book.
 
Y

yepimonfire

Audioholic Samurai
It would be interesting to discuss this with the people behind these EQ systems, to learn exactly what kinds of rooms and speakers they're trying to fix, I doubt they tried to deal with extremely high quality speaker sound or rooms that have been treated for specific issues, but I could be wrong.

When I used AVRs, I found that I was happy when I adjusted the distance in Speaker Configuration. I noticed a long time ago that I could hear the difference when the distance was adjusted by .1' increments, but if the speakers weren't already in the best spot, nothing I did made it sound as good as when I finally found their best position.

If people would let us, designing rooms with non-parallel walls and correct proportions would help a lot.
I think the best way to deal with it is to set the speakers in the proper positions, manually calibrate distances, use room treatment for HF reverberation problems and strategic sub placement or eq below 200hz for LF problems. Of course, starting with accurate speakers that exhibit uniform off axis response is a must.

It takes some work and a lot of adjustment, both objectively using measurements and then fine tuning by ear, but even in my small square bedroom I have managed to achieve excellent results.

Audyssey has always caused more problems than it solved, and the only thing it does right is flattening the LF response. I've even had problems with it setting levels and distance properly. It originally calibrated my subs at 7.7', which resulted in a massive hole at 50-60hz. Actual distance was 5.6', eventually through trial and error I discovered the null was completely eradicated by setting the distance to 5'.

I have an incredibly seamless Soundstage. After adjusting speaker distances via a tape measure, level adjustments via an spl meter, I then use pink noise to balance the channel levels for the main seat by ear. Once the stereo image is perfectly centered for each channel pair, I then use pink noise played back across all seven channels, I then adjust the levels and distances so that the image appears to be "floating" right between my ears, this takes some experience, since a phase offset sounds different than an spl offset, determining whether the trim or delay needs adjusting takes some practice.

Setting my system up this way resulted in a perfectly balanced image that forms a seamless bubble of sound (partly thanks to Atmos overheads) where the speakers disappear during multichannel soundtracks or with DSU music upmixing. Despite my surrounds being 4.3' from my ears, there is no hotspotting, because the entire system is perfectly level matched and time aligned.

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
I think the best way to deal with it is to set the speakers in the proper positions, manually calibrate distances, use room treatment for HF reverberation problems and strategic sub placement or eq below 200hz for LF problems. Of course, starting with accurate speakers that exhibit uniform off axis response is a must.

It takes some work and a lot of adjustment, both objectively using measurements and then fine tuning by ear, but even in my small square bedroom I have managed to achieve excellent results.

Audyssey has always caused more problems than it solved, and the only thing it does right is flattening the LF response. I've even had problems with it setting levels and distance properly. It originally calibrated my subs at 7.7', which resulted in a massive hole at 50-60hz. Actual distance was 5.6', eventually through trial and error I discovered the null was completely eradicated by setting the distance to 5'.

I have an incredibly seamless Soundstage. After adjusting speaker distances via a tape measure, level adjustments via an spl meter, I then use pink noise to balance the channel levels for the main seat by ear. Once the stereo image is perfectly centered for each channel pair, I then use pink noise played back across all seven channels, I then adjust the levels and distances so that the image appears to be "floating" right between my ears, this takes some experience, since a phase offset sounds different than an spl offset, determining whether the trim or delay needs adjusting takes some practice.

Setting my system up this way resulted in a perfectly balanced image that forms a seamless bubble of sound (partly thanks to Atmos overheads) where the speakers disappear during multichannel soundtracks or with DSU music upmixing. Despite my surrounds being 4.3' from my ears, there is no hotspotting, because the entire system is perfectly level matched and time aligned.

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk
How do you time align all those subs for every seat in the room? It seems to me that is only possible for one location.

I'm not convinced of the current wisdom. My integrated system works very well, with very uniform coverage. If I did use separate subs I would feel inclined to have two right next to the right and left mains. That would be not a lot different to what I have now. And my system definitely has the best multii channel performance with all speakers set to large. If you can get away with half a crossover that always bests a full one and when practical getting rid of a crossover, at least electrically. The less time shifts you build in the better.

Interestingly the Dirac paper sighted by Shady addresses this. It acknowledges varying sensitivity to time/phase shifts. I know I am highly sensitive to them, having followed the late Ted Jordan's teachings research and influence as much as I can. I credit him with influencing my thought about speaker design and reproduction more than anyone else, with conversations his writings and personal communications. Unfortunately not nearly enough attention has been paid to his work, and we are all the loosers.
 
M

MrBoat

Audioholic Ninja
@MrBoat

Its been pretty well established in research done by harman, Geddes, etc, that 2+ sub woofers spread throughout a room in strategic locations gives a much better result than a single sub or no sub at all.

The only way to avoid serious modal interactions is to have a large enough space that has the strongest first axial mode far below the systems playback capabilities. Secondly, even in the best of rooms, a single sub or speaker, combined with the listening position, will always result in some sort of peak or dip below the rooms transition frequency, this can largely be remedied using multiple subwoofers, which destructively and constructively interact to reduce the rooms effects on the response.

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk
Perhaps. But we weren't doing without hi-fi or critical music playback before subwoofers became all the rage. I own 3 way speakers that make me question why I even bother with subwoofers, and at the same time, cause me to realize why I waited so long to play with them. It was never a missing, or problematic ingredient with the music I listened to in the type of spaces I choose to live in. Not with stereo, at least.

HT and surround sound makes this more complicated, for sure. Music only system with minimal channels, makes this easier.

Oddly enough, in spite of using 2 subs, I still choose to emulate the best of the best tonal presence that I enjoyed with my best 3 way speakers. That a 'stage forward' translation of sound is a reality that I recognize and prefer, from going to a lot of live performances in many different environments, or even being in the same smaller rooms with live musicians playing. It's always been obvious which way to walk to leave the sound and where the exit doors typically were situated. .

We also have to remember that a major portion of the population, left to it's own, chose the 'smiley' configuration with EQ as optimal. Many of those same people, some that I know IRL, are now swearing by Audyssey etc. These blind studies that are used to set the preference models for these systems, or even this notion as a whole, needs more work.

Two subs in my room, in spite of the sub crawl etc., end up sounding their best, stage forward. I may not win any awards, but I realize the similarity to the live music I grew up on right down to being able to tell the brand of instruments played in many cases.

Finally, the most important improvement has been on speaker type/quality, and subwoofer type and size. More importantly yet, it's been source quality. I have my system dialed in to where I need no EQ at all on the best material. Any time I have reached for EQ, has been a source issue with correcting the recording.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Perhaps. But we weren't doing without hi-fi or critical music playback before subwoofers became all the rage. I own 3 way speakers that make me question why I even bother with subwoofers, and at the same time, cause me to realize why I waited so long to play with them. It was never a missing, or problematic ingredient with the music I listened to in the type of spaces I choose to live in. Not with stereo, at least.

HT and surround sound makes this more complicated, for sure. Music only system with minimal channels, makes this easier.

Oddly enough, in spite of using 2 subs, I still choose to emulate the best of the best tonal presence that I enjoyed with my best 3 way speakers. That a 'stage forward' translation of sound is a reality that I recognize and prefer, from going to a lot of live performances in many different environments, or even being in the same smaller rooms with live musicians playing. It's always been obvious which way to walk to leave the sound and where the exit doors typically were situated. .

We also have to remember that a major portion of the population, left to it's own, chose the 'smiley' configuration with EQ as optimal. Many of those same people, some that I know IRL, are now swearing by Audyssey etc. These blind studies that are used to set the preference models for these systems, or even this notion as a whole, needs more work.

Two subs in my room, in spite of the sub crawl etc., end up sounding their best, stage forward. I may not win any awards, but I realize the similarity to the live music I grew up on right down to being able to tell the brand of instruments played in many cases.

Finally, the most important improvement has been on speaker type/quality, and subwoofer type and size. More importantly yet, it's been source quality. I have my system dialed in to where I need no EQ at all on the best material. Any time I have reached for EQ, has been a source issue with correcting the recording.
You make some really good points.

When I listen to LPs which is quite often, I put the pre/pro into pure direct and use my bass management. I get really high quality LP playback. I also spin vinyl on the two channel rig downstairs. I don't think this would go well with puny speakers and a bunch of subs.
I also listen to vintage mono sources just using the center speaker. That sounds how it did before stereo and is better then double mono.

Getting speakers right is absolutely crucial. Much better to buy two really good speakers and not five or more less good speakers. The best way to get into this is to start with a two channel system and slowly expand it. Most domestic spaces are totally unsuitable for multi channel systems anyway.
 
M

MrBoat

Audioholic Ninja
You make some really good points.

When I listen to LPs which is quite often, I put the pre/pro into pure direct and use my bass management. I get really high quality LP playback. I also spin vinyl on the two channel rig downstairs. I don't think this would go well with puny speakers and a bunch of subs.
I also listen to vintage mono sources just using the center speaker. That sounds how it did before stereo and is better then double mono.

Getting speakers right is absolutely crucial. Much better to buy two really good speakers and not five or more less good speakers. The best way to get into this is to start with a two channel system and slowly expand it. Most domestic spaces are totally unsuitable for multi channel systems anyway.
Most people would be better served learning optimizing stereo first by ear, as if that was as good as it was ever going to get. If they really care about SQ, they will figure it out.

A better direction with room correction would be for Audyssey and the likes to tell the people what kind of speakers they need for their space first, instead of operating on a platform of perpetual repair after the fact.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
How do you time align all those subs for every seat in the room? It seems to me that is only possible for one location.

I'm not convinced of the current wisdom. My integrated system works very well, with very uniform coverage. If I did use separate subs I would feel inclined to have two right next to the right and left mains. That would be not a lot different to what I have now. And my system definitely has the best multii channel performance with all speakers set to large. If you can get away with half a crossover that always bests a full one and when practical getting rid of a crossover, at least electrically. The less time shifts you build in the better.

Interestingly the Dirac paper sighted by Shady addresses this. It acknowledges varying sensitivity to time/phase shifts. I know I am highly sensitive to them, having followed the late Ted Jordan's teachings research and influence as much as I can. I credit him with influencing my thought about speaker design and reproduction more than anyone else, with conversations his writings and personal communications. Unfortunately not nearly enough attention has been paid to his work, and we are all the loosers.
Keep the room small, the number of seats low and close together and the distance between them won't matter as much since small differences in distance won't be as bad as if the drivers were working with higher frequencies. Using more subs to alter the distribution of room modes is about all most people are willing to do about the acoustics and almost nobody wants to see room treatments.

People don't want to have a dedicated room for listening, so it's a balancing act between lifestyle and music, with music being shoved to the back of the bus by most people and almost all interior desecrators. People who lived in mansions used to have ballrooms- who does that now? I posted about a home where I was asked to install a small home theater system in what was a ballroom and the first thing I said after entering the room and hearing the echoing was "Oh, my god!". I opened the ClapIR app on my phone and clapped my hands- the RT60 at some frequencies was over 6 seconds! Terrazzo floor, plaster on poured concrete walls and wood lath & plaster ceiling. It has a smaller section that's attached via a drop in the ceiling to hide the I-beam and it's all symmetrical, other than a fireplace on one side wall. The walls have areas with some kind of applied molding, which tells me the room had some kind of wall hangings- possibly heavy tapestries, or Persian rugs. It would likely have had a piano, too- the stairway is directly across the entryway from the houses' side door and it's wide enough to carry instruments into the basement.

I don't hear about many people holding live music events, but one of my customers is doing that tonight for a fund-raiser at their home; solo violin, by a guest artist with the MKE Symphony Orchestra. Sounds like they'll have about 50 guests.
 
Y

yepimonfire

Audioholic Samurai
Perhaps. But we weren't doing without hi-fi or critical music playback before subwoofers became all the rage. I own 3 way speakers that make me question why I even bother with subwoofers, and at the same time, cause me to realize why I waited so long to play with them. It was never a missing, or problematic ingredient with the music I listened to in the type of spaces I choose to live in. Not with stereo, at least.

HT and surround sound makes this more complicated, for sure. Music only system with minimal channels, makes this easier.

Oddly enough, in spite of using 2 subs, I still choose to emulate the best of the best tonal presence that I enjoyed with my best 3 way speakers. That a 'stage forward' translation of sound is a reality that I recognize and prefer, from going to a lot of live performances in many different environments, or even being in the same smaller rooms with live musicians playing. It's always been obvious which way to walk to leave the sound and where the exit doors typically were situated. .

We also have to remember that a major portion of the population, left to it's own, chose the 'smiley' configuration with EQ as optimal. Many of those same people, some that I know IRL, are now swearing by Audyssey etc. These blind studies that are used to set the preference models for these systems, or even this notion as a whole, needs more work.

Two subs in my room, in spite of the sub crawl etc., end up sounding their best, stage forward. I may not win any awards, but I realize the similarity to the live music I grew up on right down to being able to tell the brand of instruments played in many cases.

Finally, the most important improvement has been on speaker type/quality, and subwoofer type and size. More importantly yet, it's been source quality. I have my system dialed in to where I need no EQ at all on the best material. Any time I have reached for EQ, has been a source issue with correcting the recording.
Unfortunately it's impossible to get a flat response where my speakers are placed below 60hz, so dual subs placed strategically in my room crossed at 80hz solves the problem.

In my living room, which has much better acoustics than my square bedroom, with music, I can't tell a difference between full range and a 60hz xover with a single sub placed up front.

My point is that in less than ideal rooms, a couple of properly placed subwoofers can really help solve low end peaks and dips. Eq below 200hz can too, but that tends to only work for a couple of seats without multiple subs to smooth the response around the room.

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk
 
M

MrBoat

Audioholic Ninja
Unfortunately it's impossible to get a flat response where my speakers are placed below 60hz, so dual subs placed strategically in my room crossed at 80hz solves the problem.

In my living room, which has much better acoustics than my square bedroom, with music, I can't tell a difference between full range and a 60hz xover with a single sub placed up front.

My point is that in less than ideal rooms, a couple of properly placed subwoofers can really help solve low end peaks and dips. Eq below 200hz can too, but that tends to only work for a couple of seats without multiple subs to smooth the response around the room.
I've never been one to go for ideal, bedroom audio outside of a near field setup or except when I was younger, sharing a home with roommates. Even then, the biggest honking set of 3-ways I could fit in there typically destroyed all room modes. The Tempests I own now, are the smallest (12") woofers I have ever owned for a performance system and a two-way at that. I get the whole efficiency quest with smaller drivers and cabinet tricks, I really do, but after messing with subs and two ways, the tradeoffs are apparent and it occurs to me that no matter what, you will pay the piper somewhere. I end up at the very least, compensating for the ambient difference between the 12", to the 15" 'woofers' I am used to. I recall this when auditioning systems. A 12" woofer was 'just' enough and it had nothing to do with SPL. Something about the way that that large paper cone on a good, 15" woofer, excites the air molecules even at lower levels.

I've noticed that things get a little wonky trying to work all but the smallest subwoofers in small rooms. But then, the music I listen to didn't/doesn't employ subwoofers either. In those guitar and bass amplifier cabs are drivers like the paper Eminence drivers that are in my Tempests. Also similar in construction to the drivers in the other speakers I have enjoyed over the years. The larger of which, are capable of pressurizing a small room enough for kick drums and what not.

I bet a good set of 3-ways would solve most issues in small rooms for at least, "music." I have heard loud and clear smaller driver speakers with bass, but not bass like the 15's.
 
Y

yepimonfire

Audioholic Samurai
I've never been one to go for ideal, bedroom audio outside of a near field setup or except when I was younger, sharing a home with roommates. Even then, the biggest honking set of 3-ways I could fit in there typically destroyed all room modes. The Tempests I own now, are the smallest (12") woofers I have ever owned for a performance system and a two-way at that. I get the whole efficiency quest with smaller drivers and cabinet tricks, I really do, but after messing with subs and two ways, the tradeoffs are apparent and it occurs to me that no matter what, you will pay the piper somewhere. I end up at the very least, compensating for the ambient difference between the 12", to the 15" 'woofers' I am used to. I recall this when auditioning systems. A 12" woofer was 'just' enough and it had nothing to do with SPL. Something about the way that that large paper cone on a good, 15" woofer, excites the air molecules even at lower levels.

I've noticed that things get a little wonky trying to work all but the smallest subwoofers in small rooms. But then, the music I listen to didn't/doesn't employ subwoofers either. In those guitar and bass amplifier cabs are drivers like the paper Eminence drivers that are in my Tempests. Also similar in construction to the drivers in the other speakers I have enjoyed over the years. The larger of which, are capable of pressurizing a small room enough for kick drums and what not.

I bet a good set of 3-ways would solve most issues in small rooms for at least, "music." I have heard loud and clear smaller driver speakers with bass, but not bass like the 15's.
I don't see how a three way or bigger driver would get rid of room mode problems.

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk
 
M

MrBoat

Audioholic Ninja
I don't see how a three way or bigger driver would get rid of room mode problems.

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk
You never will. And what is left of this industry that is trending for the henpecked masses held captive in sterile spaces, will not allow you to.

Have you ever seen some of those monstrous (4355 etc?) JBL's that some audiophiles squeeze into their rooms? Even translated via youtube, you can tell that they sound frign' awesome.

From here on out, for anything serious, I am going large. . . . again.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
You never will. And what is left of this industry that is trending for the henpecked masses held captive in sterile spaces, will not allow you to.

Have you ever seen some of those monstrous (4355 etc?) JBL's that some audiophiles squeeze into their rooms? Even translated via youtube, you can tell that they sound frign' awesome.

From here on out, for anything serious, I am going large. . . . again.
I had a pair of 30" ElectroVoice woofers in a small-ish basement room. If I had issues with room modes, I really didn't care. It was a very irregularly shaped room, so I doubt they were bad and I never noticed notes dropping out or being much stronger than others, either.

As the car guys say, "There's no replacement for displacement". I guess brute force does have its place.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Just came to me that you should have attached this to your series ;) :

 
D

dcrandon

Enthusiast
Come on now, the OP seems like a very intelligent guy, so it's ridiculous that he would say things like this:

..."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, for one, have found Audysseyy MultiXT32 to be very effective with the same speakers in 3 different locations. In the fourth location, it didn't make much difference.

And there are many "golden ears" out there that DO think the MultiXT32 version is very helpful. The fact that the OP didn't even know what the Audyssey system he had (didn't know if it was XT32 or not) doesn't leave me with much hope. Try MultiXT32 and tell us what you think.
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
Come on now, the OP seems like a very intelligent guy, so it's ridiculous that he would say things like this:

..."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, for one, have found Audysseyy MultiXT32 to be very effective with the same speakers in 3 different locations. In the fourth location, it didn't make much difference.

And there are many "golden ears" out there that DO think the MultiXT32 version is very helpful. The fact that the OP didn't even know what the Audyssey system he had (didn't know if it was XT32 or not) doesn't leave me with much hope. Try MultiXT32 and tell us what you think.
You're not alone. I've gotten great results with XT32 also. As have some others here. Especially since they made the editor app available. That was a real game changer, imo. You're not gonna convince ol' doc tho, lol.

old-man-yells-at-cloud-640x424.jpg
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top