No Update FOR Audyssey?

speakerman39

speakerman39

Audioholic Overlord
I see that ARC has just released a rather significant update referred to as ARC Genesis. This update does look impressive. However, that got me to thinking when will Audyssey also get a significant update? It sure makes for interesting discussion. That being said, anyone here have any insight as to when Audyssey will get an update? If so, we want to hear from YOU!


https://www.soundandvision.com/content/anthem-unveils-next-gen-room-correction-software


Cheers,

Phil
 
Last edited:
speakerman39

speakerman39

Audioholic Overlord
I know that Onkyo updated their Accu EQ to "Accu EQ Adavnce". Have read here and there that Accu EQ Advance is nothing more than MCACC. Not exactly sure if that is true. But, that seems to be the consensus from what I garner. Just curious as to when or if Audyssey will get a significant update anytime soon.


Cheers,

Phil
 
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Senior Audioholic
Staff member
Yeah not sure any of these are major updates.

I saw the Anthem announcement but from the press release I couldn’t tell what meaningful changes were made.

I wouldn’t lose sleep over it. I think most of these companies have moved on from room correction to VR and that kind of thing. They don’t seem as interested. Even DIRAC seems to be putting more effort into these other areas. Based on what they last told me, the Dirac Live update will be temporarily limited to the hardware solution and the desktop app will not be updated for now. The MIMO based correction appears to be significantly delayed if not on hold. However advancements in their other departments all seem on track.

However if you haven’t tried DIRAC live, I consider it a significant improvement over Audyssey. You can try it for free.
 
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Senior Audioholic
Staff member
Of course the other pessimistic thing I can say is that good speakers in a good room really don’t need room correction. The benefit is minimal if at all. Lots of reasons not correct the response above say 300-500hz. As much as I’ve tried to impress people with Dirac in my system, many have walked away noting the difference being minimally audible. Where it makes the biggest audible difference is bass, and for lots of people who can’t use manual eq approaches, it’s a much quicker way of getting good results. But from that perspective, no technology updates are needed. At least not in the algorithm. What needs updating is advancements in bass management and correction with true active acoustic correction. DIRAC is working on this, lots of research in this area, no commercial products.
 
speakerman39

speakerman39

Audioholic Overlord
@ryanosaur I would love to own and use DIRAC. But, it is a bit out of my budget. As such, I have to look for other alternatives. Have had very good luck w/Audyssey. Not to mention, Audyssey is typically within my budget. Just curious if there are any updates coming down the pike.

Cheers,

Phil
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Slumlord
Of course the other pessimistic thing I can say is that good speakers in a good room really don’t need room correction. The benefit is minimal if at all. Lots of reasons not correct the response above say 300-500hz. As much as I’ve tried to impress people with Dirac in my system, many have walked away noting the difference being minimally audible. Where it makes the biggest audible difference is bass, and for lots of people who can’t use manual eq approaches, it’s a much quicker way of getting good results. But from that perspective, no technology updates are needed. At least not in the algorithm. What needs updating is advancements in bass management and correction with true active acoustic correction. DIRAC is working on this, lots of research in this area, no commercial products.
That really is the truth. Audyssey mucks up my systems big time. I have no use for its frequency correction at all. It is a pretty good ruler and spl. meter and it stops there.

Again, so much bass issues are speakers. Low Q speakers really contribute to a very natural sounding bass. Far too many speakers ring like barrels,
 
speakerman39

speakerman39

Audioholic Overlord
@Matthew J Poes frequencies below 200 Hz is typically the most problematic. Audyssey has done a very good job flattening out the response in my room. Have read a lot of good things about DIRAC. Trinov is another one that comes up a lot. Based upon my experiences w/MCACC, YPAO, and Audyssey I have gotten better results w/Audyssey. Thanks for the info.

Cheers,

Phil
 
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Warlord
@ryanosaur I would love to own and use DIRAC. But, it is a bit out of my budget. As such, I have to look for other alternatives. Have had very good luck w/Audyssey. Not to mention, Audyssey is typically within my budget. Just curious if there are any updates coming down the pike.

Cheers,

Phil
I hear ya. I don’t have it either! But consensus is that’s the best. I’ll have to see what the future brings for me and my rig once the 3s arrive. Have considered a minidsp product with Dirac so I can do room correction with much more control and better bass management strategy.
(And I get you on that other thread, too! I saved for awhile... none of my rig went down as credit for more than the first statement when I paid it off! Too easy in this hobby to end up 5k in debt! Or more. Though once Dennis is back on it... those BMRs aren’t much more than your limit. ;) )
 
speakerman39

speakerman39

Audioholic Overlord
I hear ya. I don’t have it either! But consensus is that’s the best. I’ll have to see what the future brings for me and my rig once the 3s arrive. Have considered a minidsp product with Dirac so I can do room correction with much more control and better bass management strategy.
(And I get you on that other thread, too! I saved for awhile... none of my rig went down as credit for more than the first statement when I paid it off! Too easy in this hobby to end up 5k in debt! Or more. Though once Dennis is back on it... those BMRs aren’t much more than your limit. ;) )
I too have read a lot of good things about DIRAC. Also have read a lot of good things abut Trinov. Not exactly sure what is the best. But, from my own experiences Audyssey gets my vote. At least, being within my budget. Good point regarding the BMR's. But, just not able to sink that much. Unless, I want to go back into debt. Made a promise to myself that I would not do it again and so far have manged to keep it. You are correct in that doing so is very hard to do. Restraint is not one of my better qualities. :)


Cheers,

Phil
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
I doubt you'll see any changes in Audyssey from here on out, seems the current direction is elsewhere. Just take a look at their website. Their prime space on the website is more about voice recognition technology and home theater is listed last under the solutions tab after mobile applications, mobile devices, television, automotive, and personal computer. I think they consider XT32/Audyssey Pro to be the final product in this regard. Could be wrong, but it's been a while....plus I think Chris Kyriakakis sold controlling interest, too.
 
speakerman39

speakerman39

Audioholic Overlord
That may very well be true. Just curious to see if Audyssey had something in the works. Who really knows. But, it sure is not looking like it.


Cheers,

Phil
 
speakerman39

speakerman39

Audioholic Overlord
No I have not. I do NOT care for FB too much. However, that is how I communicate w/my sweetheart that resides in Cebu. Honestly, it really is not that important to me. Just was curious as to whether or not Audyssey had something in the works. Thanks for the link.

Cheers,

Phil
 
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Senior Audioholic
Staff member
@Matthew J Poes frequencies below 200 Hz is typically the most problematic. Audyssey has done a very good job flattening out the response in my room. Have read a lot of good things about DIRAC. Trinov is another one that comes up a lot. Based upon my experiences w/MCACC, YPAO, and Audyssey I have gotten better results w/Audyssey. Thanks for the info.

Cheers,

Phil
Absolutely, but I've actually not had as good results from Audyssey as I have from manual approaches. DIRAC does a very good job and I find it to work well for that.

All of these systems work under different principles and with different assumptions for the algorithm. Some are better than others, but many of the mainstream, I think, get it wrong.

Audyssey's recent switch to an app that allows manual setting of the room curve and viewing of the results was a nice addition. I think this helps for when the algorithm mis-judges the EQ curve in room. Dirac has always allowed this to be manually set, but I think the concept is poorly understood, so people misuse it a lot. MCACC, YPAO, etc. are all using inaccurate room curves and nearly always get the results wrong. As far as I am concerned, they are useless.

One of the things that has always made me nervous about DIRAC, Audyssey, and even Trinnov, is how they handle the highest frequencies and what correction is applied. The approach to measurement that we use for in-room correction involves aiming a microphone at the ceiling and then measuring at different locations. We correct the response against a reference mic. Hopefully one that is corrected against a 0-degree measurement. What isn't addressed is that the change in mic position and the fact that it's pointed at the ceiling creates some uncorrectable errors in the response above 10khz. If the software attempts to compensate, the in-room response of the speaker will be wrong. I did a test of this using a very accurate microphone and careful measurements and I found that the microphones that come with Audyssey can't be corrected above 10khz to be accurate. The response didn't just roll-off that high, it had some problems that appeared to be inherent in the capsule or mic. Even the Dayton Audio UMM-6 with Cross-spectrum correction was not precisely correct in the 90 degree position, it's response was still more rolled off above 10khz than at 0 degree, corrected against a 1/2" refernce mic. To further complicate things, the changing in height changed the directivity of the mic relative to the measurement position at those frequencies causing changing errors. In other words, the angle relative to 0 degrees changes when the mic's position is changed, but the correction is only correct at 90 degrees. Below about 10-15khz this error is so minor as to not matter. Above that point the error becomes increasingly bad as the mic becomes more directional. When I looked to see if Audyssey and Dirac attempted to correct for this error, I found the answer was YES! It was! That's a problem because that was nothing more than a measurement error.

Then we get to a general problem with automatic room correction. It can't know the directivity of the speaker and a speaker's natural in-room response shape changes with directivity. The algorithm has to guess. Here again, YPAO, MCACC, etc. all get this completely wrong. I have to question if they even know what they are doing. Audyssey seems to have put some effort into this as it seems to adjust its correction against the natural response of the speaker, but it too get's it wrong when the speakers own off-axis response is less than stellar. Audyssey also incorrectly corrects very wide and very narrow dispersion speakers. Actually, I don't know if it gets very narrow wrong, but given its behavior with very wide, I believe it would do the same thing. It tries to apply a generic general room response shape to the response regardless of what it is, only adjusting things at the extremes based on the speakers natural response (it doesn't attempt to extend the highs or lows much),and this general shape is only correct for typical speakers. It is not correct for very wide or very narrow dispersion speakers and the magnitude of this error depends on the directivity. Further, it seems to make inaccurate correction judgments when the room has a ton of absorption. If it is extremely dead, and some people have a very dead room, the curve is incorrect.

Dirac makes the same errors but I found it easily addressable. I know how a room curve should look for various speaker directivities and decay rates, but I don't expect that to be normal (and with Audyssey, its not that addressable either).

This is why I am not a huge fan. Dirac is currently the only one I've used that I still recommend. I find its errors at mid/high frequencies to be minor if at all, it gets it right often, and I find it's ability to handle low frequencies to be about as good as the manual EQ approach, assuming the speakers are all setup correctly in the first place.
 
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Warlord
@Matthew J Poes
Nice elucidation! Thank you...

...for affirming that I might need to save for a Dirac product. ;) Is this a conspiracy between you and Shady? :p
 
speakerman39

speakerman39

Audioholic Overlord
Thanks Matthew. I find this post to be very informative. Audyssey has always sounded best to my ears vs YPAO, MCACC, ACCUEQ, and etc. My experience is that Audyssey resulted in a good starting point. However, it never got my subs right. Had to dial them in myself. Plus, a little tweaking on the mids and highs. In the end, I liked what I heard. HT is not my thing. It is all about music w/me. Appreciate you taking the time to post this! :)


Cheers,

Phil
 
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Senior Audioholic
Staff member
@Matthew J Poes
Nice elucidation! Thank you...

...for affirming that I might need to save for a Dirac product. ;) Is this a conspiracy between you and Shady? :p
Hah! Well, I've been beta testing Dirac products since the inception of Live, and I spent a ton of time troubleshooting their NAD product when it was released, setting up dozens of receivers when it first was released for them. Dirac very graciously provided me with a copy of their PC software to aid in my work and has allowed me a great deal of time to use their product. I own or have in my possession a number of products with all the correction schemes noted. Well over a decades experience across them. That is my bias.

@shadyJ? He may have been corrupted by me. For those that don't know, we live near each other, so we often listen to stuff the other has. In the case of Dirac, one of the first times he came by I setup a Dirac demo for him. I also went through the details of their research papers and how the current SIMO and future MIMO systems work. I believe I am probably responsible for his favorable view of Dirac.
 
G

GalZohar

Audiophyte
Sorry for the old thread but couldn't find anything more up to date...

Matthew, if we "give up" on EQ of high frequencies, does Dirac still offer an advantage over Audyssey?
Is there any consumer system (by which I mean not requiring hardware costing thousands of dollars) that has noticeably better ability to EQ bass and/or integrate a subwoofer?

What is the most budget-friendly option to get that done with reasonable results?

Audyssey-based products don't even have an option for any manual EQ - What are my alternatives that allow manual EQ at the Audyssey price range (x3700h price area)?

Assuming the manual EQ is done right, what is the difference in result between good manual EQ and Audyssey? I thought manual EQ will generally be PEQ filters (and seems like Anthem ARC is also PEQ) while Audyssey uses FIR? And Dirac uses a combination of both? Does that make a difference?

Getting back to integration, is there anything that also handles the phase differences between the speakers and the subwoofer and even the speakers themselves? Beyond just setting the delays so that all sounds arrive at the same time, which still leaves significant phase differences in many frequencies.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Sorry for the old thread but couldn't find anything more up to date...

Matthew, if we "give up" on EQ of high frequencies, does Dirac still offer an advantage over Audyssey?
Is there any consumer system (by which I mean not requiring hardware costing thousands of dollars) that has noticeably better ability to EQ bass and/or integrate a subwoofer?

What is the most budget-friendly option to get that done with reasonable results?

Audyssey-based products don't even have an option for any manual EQ - What are my alternatives that allow manual EQ at the Audyssey price range (x3700h price area)?

Assuming the manual EQ is done right, what is the difference in result between good manual EQ and Audyssey? I thought manual EQ will generally be PEQ filters (and seems like Anthem ARC is also PEQ) while Audyssey uses FIR? And Dirac uses a combination of both? Does that make a difference?

Getting back to integration, is there anything that also handles the phase differences between the speakers and the subwoofer and even the speakers themselves? Beyond just setting the delays so that all sounds arrive at the same time, which still leaves significant phase differences in many frequencies.
FWIW the manual eq in Denon/Marantz units is not even PEQ, just plain ol' graphic eq.
 
newsletter

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