3 Weeks with Audyssey the Good the Bad and the Ugly Part 2

[TLS Guy]

Please make sure you read part 1 first.

So we are now ready to run Audyssey without the center having a ridiculous 200 Hz crossover right in the BSC range, albeit with excessive BSC to the center channel.

So here is what Audyssey did. I have to post photos of the TV screen which is not the best, but it is readable.

Speaker Config.

Speaker Distances, all correct!

Speaker Levels.

The speaker levels are reduced. In this sensitive system this is not the best. The gain structure is not correct and done I think to optimize Audyssey Dynamic Eq. More about that later.

Crossovers.

Audyssey front left and right.

Audyssey Center.

Surrounds.

Surround backs.

This last one is totally off the wall.

I do have the Audyssey Flat plots. They are similar but with an HF boost which it makes it sound worse than Audyssey. If there is enough interest I can post them.

Well the fact is that Audyssey did not improve my system but to the contrary.

So here are my settings. Which are in essence what I have used for 10 years and sound excellent.

My Speaker config.

Speakers/Bass

Crossover (Global).

So now lets look at the room responses with Audyssey and my settings at each of the Audyssey mic positions.

Audyssey front row center.

No Audyssey front row center.

The sub level is excessive with Audyssey and it had a go at correcting the room null 60 t0 80 Hz.

Audyssey front row left.

No Audyssey front row left.

Audyssey front row right

Front row right no Audyssey.

Audyssey rear right

Rear right no Audyssey

Audyssey rear center.

Rear center no Audyssey.

Audyssey rear left.

Center lrear no Audyssey.

Aydessey rear left.

Rear left no Aydyssey.

So what was the effect. Did Audyssey sound really bad? If you exclude the assault on the center speaker no. However the results were significantly worse than the graphs would suggest. There was a significant change to the ambience and spacial sense. I think that Audyssey was trying to distinguish direct and reflected sound and attempting to time them differently with failed results.

I say the above because I like Dolby PL 2x, especially on really good ambient recordings. This is especially true for BBC choral evensong. Every week for over 90 years the BBC have broadcast from the cathedrals and college chapels of England. These are superb broadcast. The BBC must be very careful with phase. On this rig you feel right in the cathedral with the PA sounding as it would. Choir and organ in front and when the congregation join a prayer, the sound is largely from the surrounds and rear backs.
With Audyssey engaged the effect is totally lost. It sounds like seven channel stereo with the spatial effects totally lost and total loss of focus. The celebrants voice sounding totally defuse.
This tells me that Audyssey is upsetting time relationships, especially of direct and reflected sound.

In this exercise it has become clear to me that you can not Eq a speaker system like this. The speaker must be correct as the ear judges reality and quality by the first direct sound. Audyssey is providing Eq to the speakers to try and correct the room, ruining the first sounds the ear hears. I believe this concept is a total dead end. In particular speech clarity was far worse with Audyssey then without. Billy Woodman of ATC told me this a few years ago and he is absolutely right.

If a person speaks in this room his voice sounds like it always does. The brain is not upset by the room. It is severely distracted by changing the first arrival trying to correct the room.

This means that there is NO substitute for good speakers. All speakers must measure well at their location and NOT have their response altered by a mic at distant locations.

This second post is now long enough. I will right Part 3 later, and provide further analysis, and describe the total disaster that is Audyssey Dynamic Eq.

 

[KEW]

Sounds like you should rename the thread to:
3 Weeks with Audyssey - the Bad and the Ugly!

 

[PENG]

Sounds like you should rename the thread to:
3 Weeks with Audyssey - the Bad and the Ugly!

That is one person's experience, I could have written another 3 part to tell the other side of the story. I have to read the lengthy thread a couple more times but my quick take is as follow:

1. He is using XT, that may be fine for some but I think it simply does not have the resolution to a good enough job for a lot of people.

2. Audyssey does not recommend main+subwoofer. Even my XT32 with SubEQ could not do as good a job in that configuration.

3. In theory, any good REQ system can only do their best for the main mic position. To think that the 8 or more position is for averaging and/or for correcting for more than on optimized position is a misconception, Audyssey's FAQ used to have something to say about that misconception.

4. It is highly possible that the other mic positions would become worse post Audyssey, it would seem random as the math/theory to predict that would be very complicated.

Any such review needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[TLS Guy]

That is one person's experience, I could have written another 3 part to tell the other side of the story. I have to read the lengthy thread a couple more times but my quick take is as follow:

1. He is using XT, that may be fine for some but I think it simply does not have the resolution to a good enough job for a lot of people.

2. Audyssey does not recommend main+subwoofer. Even my XT32 with SubEQ could not do as good a job in that configuration.

3. In theory, any good REQ system can only do their best for the main mic position. To think that the 8 or more position is for averaging and/or for correcting for more than on optimized position is a misconception, Audyssey's FAQ used to have something to say about that misconception.

4. It is highly possible that the other mic positions would become worse post Audyssey, it would seem random as the math/theory to predict that would be very complicated.

Any such review needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I assume it is XT. I can't tell if it was updated or not. When I received the 7701 I reset it to factory defaults, and downloaded the latest firmware via Ethernet cable before installing the unit. Anyhow I'm not changing the unit and getting I lot of junk I won't use. I changed mainly for ergonomics of the remote, and having the same remote at both residences. The ergonomics of the remote on the previous unit were awful. I also gained two more rear HDMI ports and all six are used so I don't have to use a switcher on one of the inputs.

I firmly believe that where ever possible using speakers full range and just supplementing with the sub is the best option in the vast majority of cases. It has so far given the best results in all systems I have set up. Bass management is an off the shelf crossover. It is the same as DIY of a speaker with an off the shelf crossover from Parts Express.

In my case the center three upper lines are all rolling off second order just above with a - 3db point just above 40 Hz. The sub signal if it is 3db down at 60 Hz will start rolling off at just the right point. This is the reason that many UK speaker manufacturers recommend the full range solution and adding in the subs setting it at F3 plus half an octave. In practice I have found this works very well and I'm yet to run into a situation were a full crossover sounds better. Obviously it helps if all the speakers have an F3 in the same ball park.

The BSC can be set precisely on all three of the front three speakers and this ability is huge for improving sound quality.

Now Audyssey set my front three to large, albeit I had to raise the BSC of the center a couple of db or so so that the idiotic Audyssey software did not cross the center at 200 Hz.
All the Audyssey measurements I posted were done with the front 3 set by Audyssey to large and a full cross at 40 Hz for surrounds and surround backs. That was chosen by Aydyssey. The non Audyssey graphs were obtained by my settings from measurements and especially listening test. The measurements of my settings are better then Audyssey and the sonic results much better.
I even one night purposely left the Audyssey settings on to see if my wife would notice. She noted something a miss right away, and wanted to know why the dialog was not clear.

As I have said before I do not believe you can correct a room with one or more distant mic positions. The first direct sound reaching the listener is crucial and gives the greatest indication to the listener of SQ. So this is why good speakers sound better than poor ones.
Now the indirect sounds all arrive at different delayed times. These unless gross do not influence sound quality perception. As I said a person speaking in different room will not sound different, even though the reflected sounds are different. The exception would be a highly ambient room in which you would never consider putting a sound system such as a public lavatory.

Now once you try and correct the room from a speaker which is also producing the first direct sound, then you have mucked up the speaker and turned a good one into a poor one.

This system could only really only work with a complex system placing multiple speakers at strategic locations that could fill and cancel nulls and peaks. Most of us have more than enough speakers already, so that won't fly. What will always be the best solution will be the best speakers you can afford and using low Q bass tuning. That is the best option. There is no bass boom or over hang in my room and the bass balance and integrations sounds totally natural and seamless.
My settings are very close to what my original Audyssey Eq did on my previous pre/pro minus the Eq which was a mess. So actually the older Audyssey version did less harm than the one I'm using now. So I suspect the more is added and complex it will get the more harm it will do.

Lastly as I have said many times you can not Eq a bad speaker and make it a good one.

So yes, I have a total disagreement with a lot of current wisdom. I firmly believe we are a purveying a lot of wrong and unhelpful advice.

It is this sort of shambles we have created that drives music lovers to 2 channel systems and exotic turntables. We need to take a leaf out of their book and not make the signal chain more complex than required.

 

[PENG]

Now Audyssey set my front three to large, albeit I had to raise the BSC of the center a couple of db or so so that the idiotic Audyssey software did not cross the center at 200 Hz.
All the Audyssey measurements I posted were done with the front 3 set by Audyssey to large and a full cross at 40 Hz for surrounds and surround backs. That was chosen by Aydyssey.

I quickly observed another issue, if you have read some of the things the Co-founder mentioned on the internet you would realize Audyssey always maintained their position that all speakers to be set to small unless you have the XT32 version. Even then, you read between the lines, they want you to set them to small, always. So it wasn't Audyssey's choice, it was the manufacturers, be it Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, NAD or others that has somehow chosen to set the speakers with a decent f3 to large, apparently to make the owners feel good about their speakers.

I agreed with most of your other comments and observations, but remember in this hobby very few people have you knowledge and experience, nor your ability to make your own speakers and room to sound good. A lot of people, like me, have to make do with what we can afford and/or what we currently have. In that sense I would still argue that REQ has it's value.

 

[dcrandon]

"My settings are very close to what my original Audyssey Eq did on my previous pre/pro minus the Eq which was a mess. So actually the older Audyssey version did less harm than the one I'm using now. So I suspect the more is added and complex it will get the more harm it will do."

No offense, but this is a ridiculous statement. An analogy would be that because today's cars are more complex than previous cars, they are worse. Or, today's medicine is more complex than before, it must be not as effective. The OP seems to have enough intelligence to realize this.