Has anyone had a positive experience with YPAO at all?

[TLS Guy]

I have a1070, fronts - ProAc 148, Surrounds - ProAc 118, Subs - 2x Svs SB2000. I agree with what you said about staging and clarity. My concern is too much brightness with ypao and a too aggresive cut of the bass. I was playing with Flat, Natural and Through and always go to Through in the end. What i would like is to have something between Flat and Natural but with bass from No YPAO))) I have not triet to change the curve manually. Maybe this is what i should try?

What do you mean by 1070 fronts? There are a boat load of speakers with 1070 designation.

I ask this as frequency balance problems are far more often than not a speaker problem. A good speaker system in the vast majority of rooms will be optimal with NO frequency manipulation. It should be pretty much connect and forget.

 

[TLS Guy]

and here we go....the train is coming off the track Gents. All relevant good stuff regarding RC, from the experts, but the OP question is about YPAO

I think there is a commonality of a false basis for all of these RC systems. Dirac I don't know, but I'm still suspicious, the rest are all fools gold. S I think we can talk about them as being in the same disaster zone.

 

[TLS Guy]

Looks like Audyssey gave you worse FR's than Bypass.

It seems PENG and many others who have compared FR's of Audyssey concluded that Audyssey gave them more linear FR's than Bypass.

It seems to me that when my Denon AVP-A1HDCI did Audyssey, the Audyssey graphs also looked better than Bypass.

But anyway, I guess it doesn't matter that much to me because in the end, I went with what my ears told me - that even though Audyssey may have produced a more linear FR, I ultimately couldn't tell the difference.

Well I could tell the difference easily. I also had the strong sense that Audyssey was mucking about in the phase department, as when engaged the sound had a curious disembodied feeling about it.

Dynamic Eq was a particular disaster. I listen almost exclusively to wide dynamic range material. You could hear Dynamic Eq "pumping" like crazy and making the back ground interfere in the soft passages. This is common to all of these gain riding programs and has been a curse since their inception.

Certainly it should NEVER be engaged on classical program. It makes a complete farce of it.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Well I could tell the difference easily. I also had the strong sense that Audyssey was mucking about in the phase department, as when engaged the sound had a curious disembodied feeling about it.

Dynamic Eq was a particular disaster. I listen almost exclusively to wide dynamic range material. You could hear Dynamic Eq "pumping" like crazy and making the back ground interfere in the soft passages. This is common to all of these gain riding programs and has been a curse since their inception.

Certainly it should NEVER be engaged on classical program. It makes a complete farce of it.

It appears any of these software could cause a wide range of effects, both good and bad depending on the case.

For me I would not buy any AVP on this earth without Audyssey Dynamic EQ. I absolutely love it for every type of music I listen, including Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach.

My call sign should have been "Dynamic EQ".

Even if I were a billionaire, I would buy the McIntosh MX122 AVP for $7K because it has Audyssey XT32 Dynamic EQ, instead of some $30K AVP.

 

[MR.MAGOO]

What do you mean by 1070 fronts? There are a boat load of speakers with 1070 designation.

I ask this as frequency balance problems are far more often than not a speaker problem. A good speaker system in the vast majority of rooms will be optimal with NO frequency manipulation. It should be pretty much connect and forget.

There's a comma after a1070, I think the OP meant his AVR is a Yamaha RX-A1070. the rest of the statement describes his speakers.

 

[little wing]

I think there is a commonality of a false basis for all of these RC systems. Dirac I don't know, but I'm still suspicious, the rest are all fools gold. S I think we can talk about them as being in the same disaster zone.

LOL!! I hear ya. I guess we can look at it as an option for those of us that don't have Room eq software and high quality Mics, and the knowledge and patience to look at graphs. I'm not ashamed to admit it, but I'm more or less a plug and play fool who has a passion for music. That doesn't mean I don't like to tweak things a bit though Maybe one day I'll indulge. But I basically agree with you, RC is fools gold. Especially if you know how a particular instrument should sound.

 

[TLS Guy]

It appears any of these software could cause a wide range of effects, both good and bad depending on the case.

For me I would not buy any AVP on this earth without Audyssey Dynamic EQ. I absolutely love it for every type of music I listen, including Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach.

My call sign should have been "Dynamic EQ".

Even if I were a billionaire, I would buy the McIntosh MX122 AVP for $7K because it has Audyssey XT32 Dynamic EQ, instead of some $30K AVP.

I can't believe that you don't hear the background modulated by Dynaic Eq. As is typical of these types of systems there is obvious pumping and its not subtle. As the dynamics decrease in db that program adds a bass and HF boost. In other words it is trying to adjust the frequency spectrum dynamically to the Fletcher Munson curves. This is bound to make the background, which is dominated by HF louder. It also must degrade the S/N ratio which it does, and I have proved that.

This whole concept is totally ridiculous anyway, as the concert hall does not muck about with the frequency response of instruments dynamically. The whole scheme is totally idiotic and without merit. On my well balanced and sensitive system the pumping of the background with the dynamic of the program is blindingly obvious with dynamic Eq enabled. It would be detected by anyone.

For realistic reproduction the signal needs to be kept as clean and unmucked about with as humanly possible.
That means keeping frequency response deviation to the minimal possible from source to speakers. Adding any effects or Eq is going to be a quality spoiler unless your room is a total disaster.

If normal speech sounds normal in your listening room, then your sound system should to.

If I put some instrumentalist in my room they would sound just fine, and I would not be looking for Eq or any other effects. In Grand Forks I did record musicians live in my studio from time to time. When played back the recording was virtually indistinguishable from the live event.

I can't emphasize enough the evils of mucking audio signals about.

 

[TLS Guy]

I have a1070, fronts - ProAc 148, Surrounds - ProAc 118, Subs - 2x Svs SB2000. I agree with what you said about staging and clarity. My concern is too much brightness with ypao and a too aggresive cut of the bass. I was playing with Flat, Natural and Through and always go to Through in the end. What i would like is to have something between Flat and Natural but with bass from No YPAO))) I have not triet to change the curve manually. Maybe this is what i should try?

I suspect as usual that your problem is speakers. Proac are known for a house sound often descried as lively or bright.

I did find a frequency response curve measured for those speakers.

The curve seems pretty typical for Proac, with the bass ripple for artificial warmth and the peaked HF at 10 KHz. A measurement from a Proac 100 was very similar. That curve would make a speaker sound a be a little bright.

Another reviewer compared the Proac Studio 118 with the ATC SCM 11. The Proac was described as lively and the ATC SCM 11 as subdued. Well I know the SCM 11 and its dead right. Billy Woodman is one of the best designers on the planet. If the Proac sounds significantly different from the ATC, then the Proac is wrong.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I can't believe that you don't hear the background modulated by Dynaic Eq. As is typical of these types of systems there is obvious pumping and its not subtle. As the dynamics decrease in db that program adds a bass and HF boost. In other words it is trying to adjust the frequency spectrum dynamically to the Fletcher Munson curves. This is bound to make the background, which is dominated by HF louder. It also must degrade the S/N ratio which it does, and I have proved that.

This whole concept is totally ridiculous anyway, as the concert hall does not muck about with the frequency response of instruments dynamically. The whole scheme is totally idiotic and without merit. On my well balanced and sensitive system the pumping of the background with the dynamic of the program is blindingly obvious with dynamic Eq enabled. It would be detected by anyone.

For realistic reproduction the signal needs to be kept as clean and unmucked about with as humanly possible.
That means keeping frequency response deviation to the minimal possible from source to speakers. Adding any effects or Eq is going to be a quality spoiler unless your room is a total disaster.

If normal speech sounds normal in your listening room, then your sound system should to.

If I put some instrumentalist in my room they would sound just fine, and I would not be looking for Eq or any other effects. In Grand Forks I did record musicians live in my studio from time to time. When played back the recording was virtually indistinguishable from the live event.

I can't emphasize enough the evils of mucking audio signals about.

I think your system is acting atypical.

In most systems I’ve seen, Audyssey either doesn’t do anything harmful (meaning your Room is in pretty good acoustic shape) or it improves the FR.

But regardless of the measured FR, the salient thing is how it sounds to you, not anyone or anything else.

There is absolutely no modulated background noise anomalies or any adverse effects done by Dynamic EQ in my system or other systems I’ve encountered.

 

[TLS Guy]

I think your system is acting atypical.

In most systems I’ve seen, Audyssey either doesn’t do anything harmful (meaning your Room is in pretty good acoustic shape) or it improves the FR.

There is absolutely no modulated background noise anomalies or any adverse effects done by Dynamic EQ in my system or other systems I’ve encountered.

It is not my system that is atypical it is me. I'm highly sensitive to audio aberration. Dynamic Eq is yet another in a long line of ghastly constructs of the musical pop culture.

The system is a dynamic compressor/expander that also alters the frequency envelope at the same time. Its interference to the original program is massive. Its object is to try and make the music of the pop culture more exciting and dynamic.

Now I hate all gated compressors and never used them in my recordings. I can hear them all in action. When I had to record program in the days were you had to use compression to fit the dynamics of the medium I used a conductors score and used sensitive manual gain riding.

This dynamic Eq is a far worse aberration as HF and bass are boosted in association with the musical dynamics. If you understand what is going on, it has to modulate the background, this is mitigated to a degree by the associated compressor. However on wide dynamic material where a good conductor can go to softest almost inaudible pianissimo to the loudest forte, the interference of this absurd construct is blindingly obvious. If you do a search you will find its only advocates in the pop confraternity.

To use it is actually a massive insult to the musicians and conductors. I certainly don't want the frequency envelope of their instruments changed at all, and especially not with a dynamic component. I certainly don't want the musicians and conductors dynamics altered in anyway.

Just read up on what this program really is and you will see what an awful hash of a program it is.

Anyone with any musical sensitivity would run a mile from it.

To top it off you really have to take pains to lock that program out hard. You have to do it input by input and make sure the lock is on when your finished. The creators have enough hubris to darn near force it on you.

That is a program only for musically insensitive philistines.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

It is not my system that is atypical it is me. I'm highly sensitive to audio aberration. Dynamic Eq is yet another in a long line of ghastly constructs of the musical pop culture.

The system is a dynamic compressor/expander that also alters the frequency envelope at the same time. Its interference to the original program is massive. Its object is to try and make the music of the pop culture more exciting and dynamic.

Now I hate all gated compressors and never used them in my recordings. I can hear them all in action. When I had to record program in the days were you had to use compression to fit the dynamics of the medium I used a conductors score and used sensitive manual gain riding.

This dynamic Eq is a far worse aberration as HF and bass are boosted in association with the musical dynamics. If you understand what is going on, it has to modulate the background, this is mitigated to a degree by the associated compressor. However on wide dynamic material where a good conductor can go to softest almost inaudible pianissimo to the loudest forte, the interference of this absurd construct is blindingly obvious. If you do a search you will find its only advocates in the pop confraternity.

To use it is actually a massive insult to the musicians and conductors. I certainly don't want the frequency envelope of their instruments changed at all, and especially not with a dynamic component. I certainly don't want the musicians and conductors dynamics altered in anyway.

Just read up on what this program really is and you will see what an awful hash of a program it is.

Anyone with any musical sensitivity would run a mile from it.

To top it off you really have to take pains to lock that program out hard. You have to do it input by input and make sure the lock is on when your finished. The creators have enough hubris to darn near force it on you.

That is a program only for musically insensitive philistines.

As they say, to each his own.

A lot of people claim to have certain special hearing capabilities or systems.

Heck, I grew up playing the piano and I've been in this hobby for a while now, so I guess I could claim to have some kind of special hearing capability too.

Bottom line - it’s extremely easy for people to know what sounds great to them.

And at the end of the day, that’s what counts - no matter which EQ they use or not use.

The salient thing is what sounds great to them, not anyone else with special hearing capabilities.

 

[DIY Junky]

All those systems are a dead end. You can not Eq a system from a cheap plastic microphone placed at various distances in a room. That will always ruin everything. Trust your ears. I have a really good set up and Audyssey just wreaks havoc on it and I mean havoc.

I even went as far as keeping the cheap plastic Audyssey microphone in the same Sweet Spot for all readings. Was not happy with results. Cleared everything and sat my ass in chair and did all settings manually with my ears .Trust your ears its your system.. I call this the Audacity system. Who is listening to the system you or the microphone?

 

[DIY Junky]

What do you mean by 1070 fronts? There are a boat load of speakers with 1070 designation.

I ask this as frequency balance problems are far more often than not a speaker problem. A good speaker system in the vast majority of rooms will be optimal with NO frequency manipulation. It should be pretty much connect and forget.

My goal is to playback what the artist created as they intended it to be heard.. Not to mess with it .. Proper speaker placement and room treatment .. not the music ..

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I even went as far as keeping the cheap plastic Audyssey microphone in the same Sweet Spot for all readings. Was not happy with results. Cleared everything and sat my ass in chair and did all settings manually with my ears .Trust your ears its your system.. I call this the Audacity system. Who is listening to the system you or the microphone?

You have a point there. What matters most is how it sounds to you, not someone else or anything (microphone) else.

Only use something that improves the sound to you.

 

[PENG]

True - I think all RC has it's limitations. I tried a denon reciever and the bass didn't sound any better in my room. Granted I only kept it for a few weeks.
I was just trying to think of things that might change the brightness in the OP system. There is a review by What hifi? on the Yamaha 1060 (I realize he has the 1070) but the review says the amp tended toward being a bit bright. Whether you put too much stock in those reviews or not is up for debate, but obviously Adrein is hearing it. So, what could tame the brightness? Manual Eq? Taking a look at the room? Hard surfaces perhaps? (Walls, floors) Maybe some stategically placed throw pillows? I don't know.

I know when I switch back and forth between Natural (YPAO) and Through (No YPAO) Natural sounds better to me.

If you have plotted FR in your room you will see that those subjective reviews are meaningless, sure people can debate all they want but facts are facts. One can debate on whether current is not dependent on voltage and impedance regardless of the Ohm's law too right? You can't tame those reported "brightness" without knowing the causes and the causes are most likely, thought not always related to the recording, speakers, placement/room, sort of in that order, but not the amps unless the amps are voiced. There aren't too many amps are voiced nowadays, for AVRs probably none. Do you know of any brand name amps that are "voiced"?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

My goal is to playback what the artist created as they intended it to be heard.. Not to mess with it .. Proper speaker placement and room treatment .. not the music ..

Ah, now that opens up another can of worms right there - what they "intended"!

I mean, we can't read their minds, right? How do we know exactly what they intended?

Bottom line is, isn't "entertainment" the salient goal here? To make us feel great? To make us look at our systems and say, "Yes! That's what I'm talking about! Awesome sound to my ears!"

 

[little wing]

If you have plotted FR in your room you will see that those subjective reviews are meaningless. You can't tame those reported "brightness" without knowing the causes and the causes are mostly related to the recording, speakers, placement/room, sort of in that order, but not the amps unless the amps are voiced. There aren't too many amps are voiced nowadays, for AVRs probably none. Do you know of any brand name amps that are "voiced"?

There are ALOT more amps that I haven't heard than ones I have, but I can't say that I do.

 

[PENG]

There are ALOT more amps that I haven't heard than ones I have, but I can't say that I do.

I don't mean one that you have "heard" meaning actually listened to, but "heard" meaning heard about it. I have only listened to one Pass lab amp when auditioning speakers, but I have heard about some Pass Lab amps might have been voiced in certain way. Some Carver, not sure about Sunfire's amps were also apparently voiced to sound like tube amps by design.

As for AVRs, they all appear to claim virtually flat FR 20-20,000 Hz and negligible distortions once you get pass the entry level models.

 

[DIY Junky]

Ah, now that opens up another can of worms right there - what they "intended"!

I mean, we can't read their minds, right? How do we know exactly what they intended?

Bottom line is, isn't "entertainment" the salient goal here? To make us feel great? To make us look at our systems and say, "Yes! That's what I'm talking about! Awesome sound to my ears!"

When they "the artist" are done with master recordings and put it in a audio format and then they sell it to you. that is how THEY want you to hear it . I never mess with EQ settings just my sub is set to below 50hz and sublevel knob is at #2 position ...very low and it still shakes the Floor .. my sub is only thing I mess with . again just me … and my ears

 

[PENG]

Let me elaborate a little to explain the point I am trying to make, using your speakers as example.

This is quasi-anechoic, the FR is quite flat such that Ascend must be proud, but far from being flat. If you were to do it from your listening position in your own room without YPAO, I guarantee you the plot will look uglier. How much uglier will depend on your room, placement and your mic position.

Now if you replace your 3060 with an "unvoiced" amp, such as any ATI, Monolith, Bryston, Parasound, Marantz amps that are known to be virtually transparent based on available specs and 3rd parties lab measurements and plot the graphs under the same conditions, you will get the exact same looks. Then move the speakers a few inches, or change the toe-in a few degrees, or simply move you mic a few inches, you will not likely hear much difference (that is, less or more brightness), but you will see the obvious difference.

My point is, it does not seem logical to assume/allege those subjective claims of "brightness" are due to the amps in use. I am not saying it is not possible, but probably not plausible..