onkyo 805

[bigvag]

I'm running a onkyo 805 with paradigm cinema 330s. My question is is there a setting in there for setting your speaker size, I know most of the recievers have this feature but I can't seem to locate it on the 805

 

[PeterWhite]

It's best if you have your television switched on for this and video out connected to the TV. Press the "setup" button on the remote and select "Speaker Setup", then "Speaker Settings". swithout a TV, you can still work through setup using the front panel display of the 805.

Also, see page 86 of the manual. If you don't have a manual, you can download a PDF from the Onkyo website.

 

[lsiberian]

I'm running a onkyo 805 with paradigm cinema 330s. My question is is there a setting in there for setting your speaker size, I know most of the recievers have this feature but I can't seem to locate it on the 805

No it actually uses crossovers without a speaker size.

 

[bigvag]

Is it best to use the audissy eq mic set up.

 

[MatthewB.]

Peter White hit the nail on the head, that's what I did when setting up my 805 (hook it up to a TV) and go under Menu.

 

[PeterWhite]

Is it best to use the audissy eq mic set up.

I've run Audissey several times and it never gets the speaker distances or the size correct. I get better sound quality setting everything manually. I use my Mac laptop. You can download software to generate sine waves of any frequency, including sweeps. Then, with a sound meter you can figure out what's going on in the room, far more precisely than Audissey can. Of course it will take more than the 15 minutes Audissey takes, but for me it was well worth the time.

 

[bigvag]

My buddy brought over his meter and we set it up with it. On the manual eq should I keep everything on 0bd, haven't played around with it much.

 

[bigvag]

Oh and the audissy seemed to get the distance correct except it said the center channel was 1 foot closer when it mounted on the same wall as the mains.

 

[jostenmeat]

I use an 805 as HT processor, and I bought it for the XT. I think it works great. For the size issue, it's not a fault of Audyssey, as it is Onkyo. The algorithms that Audyssey supplies are identical for every brand; it's the implementation by the receiver brand that varies. That comes from the horse's mouth.

For distances, everything I have read, and experienced, leads me to believe it's spot on. I don't know what would happen in an extremely reflective place, however. Mine is substantially treated.

Then consider that Audyssey XT applies hundreds of filters. The manual eq trims are only a handful in comparison.

If you have the 805, at least give it a shot. If you don't like it, defeat it, big deal, you lost almost half an hour. To get XT today, you have to spend upwards of $1,000 or so, the minimum levels for certain brands for instance being 2309 for Denon or 876 for Onkyo.

IMO, the Audyssey XT is by far the most value rich feature on the unit. The amp section might be for many others, but I don't use the amps on it. That's just me, and obviously YMMV.

 

[PeterWhite]

Then consider that Audyssey XT applies hundreds of filters. The manual eq trims are only a handful in comparison.

Yes, but it's setting those filters based only on the input from the several discreet microphone positions. To hear why that's a bad idea, get yourself a tone generator. I use my Mac, and set it to any frequency about 2000 cycles. Then move your head. Notice how the amplitude changes, even between your two ears. That's comb filtering, caused by reflections. If the Audissey is trying to correct for it, it will cause huge peaks and nulls at locations where you didn't have a microphone.

Audissey might be great if you could position two microphones precisely where your two ears would be, and if you could then do all of your listening with your head locked in that one position. Not my cup of tea! Room treatments are a real solution to the problem, and they don't cause problems of their own.

 

[jostenmeat]

Audissey might be great if you could position two microphones precisely where your two ears would be, and if you could then do all of your listening with your head locked in that one position. Not my cup of tea! Room treatments are a real solution to the problem, and they don't cause problems of their own.

If there indeed was only one primary LP, you could use the 8 available measuring positions in the general vicinity where the two ears would be. Heck, 38% room length is the desired proportion to avoid peaks and nulls, but people like to recline and move their head. The simple fact of "trying" will already yield some benefits.

One would have to be very adept to get a better response on one's own. And of course spend a lot more time. Yet, part of the popularity of this RC is that some experts have scientifically found that the results are just as good as the "manual" method (which usually means a single LP), yet is so much easier. An eloquent analogy I've read before goes like this, in response to a similar viewpoint as yours in regards to AS:

"Suppose you know how to keep re-arranging blocks of ice in order to regulate the temperature of food placed nearby. You can then say that a refrigerator only replicates what an individual with incredible patience and a lot of free time can accomplish."

If you consider 8 positions to be few, how many are you calibrating for? I assume you are only calibrating for one position. As for moving your head and receiving a different response, that'll basically happen no matter what. In fact, if anything, Audyssey is very good at finding and dialing down ringing tones. Ringing tones that often do not show up as a peak in any certain spot, but simply linger for a longer period. You fix that where it is a peak, and you've basically ruined it for someone where it used to be perfect.

I'm with you on room treatments. I did those first, before Audyssey. I've got 15 panels.

Now, some people do not like Audyssey because they prefer a different response. Many people have simply become accustomed to inaccurate response provided by rooms, which most of the time is even yet to be treated. Some others simply want something like exaggerated bass.


Anyways, for anything less than getting really involved with proficiently using test equipment, successfully correlating data, from various positions, then interpreting the results, and lastly build the correct filters for them . . .

I'm simply recommending the OP give it a shot. Seriously, what % of people that buy a mid-level receiver will go to the lengths you do? For those who don't, I don't think you believe Audyssey does more harm than good, although there are even some AHers who do.

 

[PeterWhite]

I don't think you believe Audyssey does more harm than good, although there are even some AHers who do.

In fact, that's the conclusion I have come to. Right now, my system is set to flat, and I think it sounds rather good. I have quite a bit of absorption in the room. Ten "Real Traps", Almost the entire ceiling is stuffed with "Ultra Touch" cotton, and most of the wall behind the TV and main speakers has "Ultra Touch" rolled up along the floor. (I need to work out a nice way of covering it up.)

Basically, if your speakers have flat output, and if you can control the worst reflections, you'll have reasonably flat response where you're sitting.

I'd be a lot less negative about Audissey if they gave you a graph of what it's doing, and then let you make adjustments after the fact. But as it is, at least in the 805, there's no way to know what Audissey has done, except for the bogus distances and speaker sizes it reports and sets for you.

I've concluded it's worse than nothing for another reason as well. If you think, as the marketing would suggest, that Audissey is going to solve problems in the room, you're perhaps less inclined to try reducing room reflections. And Audissey simply can't do anything about the ringing and nulls caused by those reflections.

 

[jostenmeat]

In fact, that's the conclusion I have come to. Right now, my system is set to flat, and I think it sounds rather good. I have quite a bit of absorption in the room. Ten "Real Traps", Almost the entire ceiling is stuffed with "Ultra Touch" cotton, and most of the wall behind the TV and main speakers has "Ultra Touch" rolled up along the floor. (I need to work out a nice way of covering it up.)

This conversation is particuarly interesting to me, because we have a lot of similar products. We both have an 805. Martin Logan product (demo Summits). I also have exactly 10 Real Traps (8x HF Mondos and 2x HF Minis from Audiogon). Ok, so I have GIK product as well with the 244s and 242s. However, I've never yet tried RC with the stereo, but would like to try one day. bandphan can attest to that. But, I think that desire has faded due to other expenditures.

I'm not sure how much the cotton will do for you when stuffed, outside of some insulation. It's not going to absorb much reflection, obviously, unless it's on the actual wall.

Absorbing the front wall seems to a be a popular thing with HT enthusiasts, but if you ask certain persons like Ethan Winer, the rear wall is much more important. Ok, never mind, just noticed the dipole mains in your sig. *please strike from record*. (I do the same thing, absorb the front wall of stereo).

Basically, if your speakers have flat output, and if you can control the worst reflections, you'll have reasonably flat response where you're sitting.

Fair enough Peter.

I'd be a lot less negative about Audissey if they gave you a graph of what it's doing, and then let you make adjustments after the fact. But as it is, at least in the 805, there's no way to know what Audissey has done, except for the bogus distances and speaker sizes it reports and sets for you.

I can understand your viewpoint. I would be the first one to join you in asking for graphs and tweakability. But, I guess I keep my demands in check for the price I paid at $600. Heck, just the amp section alone is a rarity for anything in the ballpark of that figure.

Without included graphs, people have and do measure the results. It's precisely because people I trust have measured AS results to be beneficial, that convinved me to give it a shot. And not always simply "beneficial", but sometimes even better than the results they had acheived after countless hours with meter, laptop, DCX, what-have-you. Significant treatments being a given.

Even ARC gives you only basic flexibility, being the cut-off point of RC, so that processor power may be more focused. (And that price point is waaay up there, maybe more than your Vistas). I'm not sure if Trinnov enjoys greater processor power by doing so, and if IIRC that would be the simple choice of correction above 300hz. While MCAAC has many fans due to tweakability for personal preference, IIRC correction cutoff is at 63 hz. This higher cutoff does represent a tradeoff. Even those who are rather middle-of-the-road about this kind of technology believe the greatest strength of "RC" lies in the bass correction, perhaps due to concerns about the Schroeder transition area (which is probably the point of the Trinnov 300hz cutoff).

I've concluded it's worse than nothing for another reason as well. If you think, as the marketing would suggest, that Audissey is going to solve problems in the room, you're perhaps less inclined to try reducing room reflections. And Audissey simply can't do anything about the ringing and nulls caused by those reflections.

I'm sorry, IMO, this is a poor argument at AH. Heck, not just here. No one, ANYWHERE, AT ANY FORUM, would every suggest that RC is the panacea for treating a room. EVER. NOT ONCE. YOU CAN QUOTE ME ON THAT.

If anything, sure, RC sometimes might* be advised more liberally, IF ROOM TREATMENTS ARE COMPLETELY OUT OF THE QUESTION.

If you did measure AS results, you can speak from any certain scientific point of view. Otherwise, again, I'm here to simply encourage the OP to give it a shot. You seem to be trying to nip it in the bud. Let the OP decide.

It's rather interesting to me to see how long it takes for some to use this included feature on their receiver.

My whole point to begin with was simply for the OP to give it a shot!

 

[jostenmeat]

I'd be a lot less negative about Audissey if they gave you a graph of what it's doing, and then let you make adjustments after the fact. But as it is, at least in the 805, there's no way to know what Audissey has done, except for the bogus distances and speaker sizes it reports and sets for you.

I forgot to address these points. Ok, we've already discussed speaker sizes, but since you keep bringing it up, I'll keep giving you the CORRECT answer. It is the choice of implementation by the receiver manufacturer, and in this case it happens to be Onkyo. Audyssey will instruct you to ALWAYS set your speakers to small when a sub is in the mix.

Again, for distances, Audyssey is very accurate.

Audyssey's distance measurement resolution is finer than 0.1 ft.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=15483935&postcount=9920

This post is a must read.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=15872537&postcount=11436


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=16119218&postcount=13279

 

[jacksprat]

Peter,

what do you have the sr805 speaker settings at? 4ohm or 6ohm?

 

[Lordoftherings]

Peter,

what do you have the sr805 speaker settings at? 4ohm or 6ohm?

6ohm is the right setting, in particular with his Paradigm speakers.

* 6ohm setting should be the setting of choice with the Onkyo TX-SR805 for 95% of cases, if not all cases.

Sorry for the intervention, I just thought of adding this important information, which is well known in the circle.