Audyssey MultEQ-X New Mic, Features and Livestream Discussion!

[lovinthehd]

You sound like a bit of a curmudgeon yourself. It takes one to know one!

True enough, but think my music tastes are far wider than yours. As well as my tolerance for "inferior" units like avrs compared to your mishmash of pre-pros and limited amps....YMMV. I'm about 10 years behind you and pretty sure I have an appreciation for your limited hearing at this point, too.

ps but am somewhat impressed how late you stay up

 

[TLS Guy]

True enough, but think my music tastes are far wider than yours. As well as my tolerance for "inferior" units like avrs compared to your mishmash of pre-pros and limited amps....YMMV. I'm about 10 years behind you and pretty sure I have an appreciation for your limited hearing at this point, too.

ps but am somewhat impressed how late you stay up

My hearing is just fine. I test it regularly.

My amps are not limited, but among the finest and most reliable ever made.

 

[brian6751]

So, if my AVR dies, I have to buy a new license? I dont understand why the licensing cannot be like Dirac. This is what will stop me from purchasing and the argument made for it in the video was super weak

 

[Corrected]

My prediction: Future AVRs will come without a microphone, and users will be expected to use a phone's microphone instead. Enthusiasts will need to buy the calibrated microphone. AVRs will add a way to input the calibrated microphone's serial number so that the AVR can download the profile for that microphone. The ability to plug in a microphone to do room correction will be removed from the lowest-end models (app only). Mid-range and high-end models will support microphones but you'll have to input the serial number of a purchased microphone first. If we're lucky, AVRs will continue to allow the use of old microphones that were bundled with older AVRs, but I suspect that will not be the case going forward.

I had read in a forum post that Sound United had purchased Audyssey, but I think that forum post was incorrect. It seems Audyssey is a separate company still. And now that I realize I was mistaken about who owned them, I think my take above is probably too cynical. Now I think that Audyssey is simply trying to grow by finding new revenue opportunities. I am inclined to support them financially by buying MultiEQ-X.

I think this microphone offering is most likely a response to people asking for support for the UMIK-1. I'm still skeptical about the benefits of buying their calibrated microphone until I see a convincing argument for it over an uncalibrated one that came with my AVR.

 

[GalZohar]

I don't actually understand why Denon doesn't just buy it to bundle with AVRs, they could probably get it for a lot less than 200$ (as the development cost is the same regardless of how many units use it, and a lot more units will use it), and it would help marketing s less people will claim how bad Audyssey is because they just calibrated trough the AVR and never bothered with the 20$ or 200$ app which you have to both know about and be willing to pay for without being able to fully understand the benefits. Can't really compare it to something like DLBC which is supposedly a different level of algorithms (although it does share some arguments). For Audyssey this is really just a better interface to existing technology and doesn't have any ground breaking algorithms, and probably has a high price tag simply because they need to cover the development costs with a relatively small number of sales.

 

[Auditor55]

I don't actually understand why Denon doesn't just buy it to bundle with AVRs, they could probably get it for a lot less than 200$ (as the development cost is the same regardless of how many units use it, and a lot more units will use it), and it would help marketing s less people will claim how bad Audyssey is because they just calibrated trough the AVR and never bothered with the 20$ or 200$ app which you have to both know about and be willing to pay for without being able to fully understand the benefits. Can't really compare it to something like DLBC which is supposedly a different level of algorithms (although it does share some arguments). For Audyssey this is really just a better interface to existing technology and doesn't have any ground breaking algorithms, and probably has a high price tag simply because they need to cover the development costs with a relatively small number of sales.

Waiting for someone to actually use it and report back.

 

[EBN]

So, there is trouble below the transition frequency. In a high powered speaker like that with a lot of power below 600 Hz, there will be room dependent problems.

Eq, very likely will help this.

However, I think Perlisten made a huge error of judgement not to make this speaker active, at least partially. When you design and build a potent speaker like that, it is going to be very room/position sensitive. If it were active, then the output below transition could have been made easily variable. That is why my front three have continuously variable baffle step compensation. My rears allow considerable trimming of BSC, and the surrounds have two choices of where the transition starts. These are the smallest of the seven main speakers, not including the ceiling speakers.

The active control settings of the front three speakers and the rear backs, are very different between my old room in Benedict and the one here in Eagan. The design made transferring the speakers between the two locations a simple endeavor under instrument control.

The other issue is the Perlistens are still a resonant design. In a speaker with prodigious power in the last two octaves having non resonant aperiodic bass alignment is a huge advantage. Unfortunately since the death of John Wright of TDL, less people have had the opportunity to experience it than heretofore.

I started design work on my front three early 2000s, after George Augspurger published his TL model. Modelling software created by George can be downloaded from my website and is available to all. Quite a few DIYers have now downloaded it. It really is a pity no one has used this model to offer commercial offerings.

I think in a state of the art speaker, the deign should now be fully active. I did not make my high pass crossover to the tweeters active, because at that time I could not justify power amps to drive tweeters. However, if I were designing it now, with what is available I would have done an entirely active design.

The other issue I have with Perlisten's design is having crossovers right in the most sensitive part of the speech discrimination band. Don't get me wrong, the crossovers are very good, but not perfect, as there is no perfect solution. You can see the imperfections in the data you published. Unfortunately experience has taught me that the ear is just devilishly sensitive to phase and level aberrations in this region. I have a personal rule of no crossovers from 800 Hz to 2.5 KHz, and if possible, not between 500 Hz and 4 KHz. Unfortunately that really restricts your selection of eligible drivers.

You must be most negative person i have seen in any audio forum for last 20years. You bash Audussey while have only used the anemic XT version not the better XT32 with editor app which let`s you limit the correction if required and remove bbc dip. It also comes with higher filter resolution and more effective correction for low frequencies which @PENG has shown to be quite close to Dirac Live.

You also bash most mainstream speakers even without hearing them, but same time you always praice your ugly DIY speakers like they would be gift from god.

I wanted to give you grumpy grandpa award, but this will have to do for now.

 

[PENG]

You must be most negative person i have seen in any audio forum for last 20years. You bash Audussey while have only used the anemic XT version not the better XT32 with editor app which let`s you limit the correction if required and remove bbc dip. It also comes with higher filter resolution and more effective correction for low frequencies which @PENG has shown to be quite close to Dirac Live.

You also bash most mainstream speakers even without hearing them, but same time you always praice your butt ugly DIY speakers like they would be gift from god.

I wanted to give you grumpy grandpa award, but this will have to do for now.

To be fair, his speakers/room seems like a winner, based on the FR graphs he posted so far. So he likely won't gain much if anything at all by using any sort of REQ, Dirac, Trinnov or whatever. I do think and have suggested to him, that he shouldn't discourage (not that he did directly, but could have left such an impression by being so negative about it, without reservation...) others to try using REQ.

 

[Golfx]

So, there is trouble below the transition frequency. In a high powered speaker like that with a lot of power below 600 Hz, there will be room dependent problems.

Eq, very likely will help this.

However, I think Perlisten made a huge error of judgement not to make this speaker active, at least partially. When you design and build a potent speaker like that, it is going to be very room/position sensitive. If it were active, then the output below transition could have been made easily variable. That is why my front three have continuously variable baffle step compensation. My rears allow considerable trimming of BSC, and the surrounds have two choices of where the transition starts. These are the smallest of the seven main speakers, not including the ceiling speakers.

The active control settings of the front three speakers and the rear backs, are very different between my old room in Benedict and the one here in Eagan. The design made transferring the speakers between the two locations a simple endeavor under instrument control.

The other issue is the Perlistens are still a resonant design. In a speaker with prodigious power in the last two octaves having non resonant aperiodic bass alignment is a huge advantage. Unfortunately since the death of John Wright of TDL, less people have had the opportunity to experience it than heretofore.

I started design work on my front three early 2000s, after George Augspurger published his TL model. Modelling software created by George can be downloaded from my website and is available to all. Quite a few DIYers have now downloaded it. It really is a pity no one has used this model to offer commercial offerings.

I think in a state of the art speaker, the deign should now be fully active. I did not make my high pass crossover to the tweeters active, because at that time I could not justify power amps to drive tweeters. However, if I were designing it now, with what is available I would have done an entirely active design.

The other issue I have with Perlisten's design is having crossovers right in the most sensitive part of the speech discrimination band. Don't get me wrong, the crossovers are very good, but not perfect, as there is no perfect solution. You can see the imperfections in the data you published. Unfortunately experience has taught me that the ear is just devilishly sensitive to phase and level aberrations in this region. I have a personal rule of no crossovers from 800 Hz to 2.5 KHz, and if possible, not between 500 Hz and 4 KHz. Unfortunately that really restricts your selection of eligible drivers.

Dang, poor Perlisten. They should have consulted you before designing and making their critically acclaimed speakers. What were they thinking?