Is anyone doing this? If so, experiences, measurements? Or if you just have particular insight into this product that isn't available on the website. For those of you that didn't get the memo:
http://www.audyssey.com/
This technology happens to be integrated into many Denon HT receiver units and is least expensively available in the AVR-2807 which starts at about $770 .
http://www.audyssey.com/
This technology happens to be integrated into many Denon HT receiver units and is least expensively available in the AVR-2807 which starts at about $770 .
Audyssey
Just starting to fiddle with this on the 3808 HT from xmas. Initial setup with 5.1 shows noticable improvement for movies,less so for music, using the auto setip and 6 position measurements.
I'll be further fiddling after byuilding 2 more dipoles for 7.1 surround. The results were not spectacular, as I'd already spent considerable time with room locations, etc., and haven't had much time to listen/experiment.
Anyone else used or using this?
John L.
Just starting to fiddle with this on the 3808 HT from xmas. Initial setup with 5.1 shows noticable improvement for movies,less so for music, using the auto setip and 6 position measurements.
I'll be further fiddling after byuilding 2 more dipoles for 7.1 surround. The results were not spectacular, as I'd already spent considerable time with room locations, etc., and haven't had much time to listen/experiment.
Anyone else used or using this?
John L.
I don't suppose you have the ability to take measurements with the MultEQ filter on and off to see how it change the frequency and phase response at the listening position do you?
I have a Pre Amp/Processor on order with it as part of the package. Should receive it in a week or 2. I am set up now with EQ's across the front, none in the back. I will post what I think once I get it up and running. Initial set-up will be a 5.1 but I am going to go to 7.1 in the near future.
There are several reviews out there if you look for them. Some are buried in products that have it installed and a couple on the stand alone box. They seem to be mixed and it takes a couple of tries to get it right. From the positive reviews I can't wait to give it a try.
Rob🙂
There are several reviews out there if you look for them. Some are buried in products that have it installed and a couple on the stand alone box. They seem to be mixed and it takes a couple of tries to get it right. From the positive reviews I can't wait to give it a try.
Rob🙂
m0tion said:
Actually, it displays the correction after setup, but I've yet to find the right remote control (which sucks, btw) access to that data
But, the setup procedure is easy and quick, so next time I run it, I'll grab a screen shot and post it. As I recall, the corrections were dramatic, much more than I would have suspected, given the less dramatic results in the sound.
More to come.
John L.
"Actually, it displays the correction after setup"
It's very poor, though.
See "The Official Audyssey" thread at AVSForum in the Receiver forum discussing it at length with participation of Audyssey CTO.
Searching taht forum for Audyssey will get you some more threads fore Denon and Onkyo.
It's very poor, though.
See "The Official Audyssey" thread at AVSForum in the Receiver forum discussing it at length with participation of Audyssey CTO.
Searching taht forum for Audyssey will get you some more threads fore Denon and Onkyo.
further listening
well, just spent a few hours reviewing (listening) to a wide variety of music I'm familiar with, and can unequivocally state mutieq makes a substantial improvement in my setup.
Best way to characterize it is a significant improvement in coherency of the sound, especially wrt percussion, trumpets, piano attack, and the inner details. I'm hearing things in music I'm familiar with that I didn't hear before.
I grabbed the spouse and had her listen (not one of her favorite pastimes), then asked her if she heard anything different. She stated that, before multieq., the bass just got louder and pounded everything, whereas now, even at lower volumes, there is more of a "presence" to the bass, the notes are clear and equal levels as they change pitch,the percussion sounds are much more distinct and pleasant, and there are more details to the sound. She said vocals weren't much changed, stating she didn't think they could get much better anyway from this setup.
So she pretty much confirmed what I'm hearing with this setup. I've still gotta rerun the setup, fiddle with the settings, listen to more symphonic works, etc., but this is as much of an improvement as I've experienced as upgrading speakers. The "sweet spot" now extends over a wide arc across the back side of the listening room as well.
I'm trying really hard not to become delusional... 😀
John L.
well, just spent a few hours reviewing (listening) to a wide variety of music I'm familiar with, and can unequivocally state mutieq makes a substantial improvement in my setup.
Best way to characterize it is a significant improvement in coherency of the sound, especially wrt percussion, trumpets, piano attack, and the inner details. I'm hearing things in music I'm familiar with that I didn't hear before.
I grabbed the spouse and had her listen (not one of her favorite pastimes), then asked her if she heard anything different. She stated that, before multieq., the bass just got louder and pounded everything, whereas now, even at lower volumes, there is more of a "presence" to the bass, the notes are clear and equal levels as they change pitch,the percussion sounds are much more distinct and pleasant, and there are more details to the sound. She said vocals weren't much changed, stating she didn't think they could get much better anyway from this setup.
So she pretty much confirmed what I'm hearing with this setup. I've still gotta rerun the setup, fiddle with the settings, listen to more symphonic works, etc., but this is as much of an improvement as I've experienced as upgrading speakers. The "sweet spot" now extends over a wide arc across the back side of the listening room as well.
I'm trying really hard not to become delusional... 😀
John L.
That is a bold statement. I'm very impressed. Please check back after further listening and let us know if your opinion is still the same.
toys for tots
I agree to some extent, but I don't have the time to implement the "full monty" of your previous work, Ant ...
maybe I should dis_enABL using it, eh? 😉
So take it for what it's worth, I guess... 😀 😉
John L.
I agree to some extent, but I don't have the time to implement the "full monty" of your previous work, Ant ...
maybe I should dis_enABL using it, eh? 😉
So take it for what it's worth, I guess... 😀 😉
John L.
Pah???
Of course, Shin, you haven't heard my line source BG dipoles w/wo multieq, so attitude???😉
Since I've spent extensive time with passive efforts to improve room acoustics, perhaps I don't need multi $$$$ computer active digital manipulation to achieve audio nirvana...😎
John L.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Of course, Shin, you haven't heard my line source BG dipoles w/wo multieq, so attitude???😉
Since I've spent extensive time with passive efforts to improve room acoustics, perhaps I don't need multi $$$$ computer active digital manipulation to achieve audio nirvana...😎
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
John L.
Re: Pah???
Indeed, I must concede that yours is bigger. 😉
The junk built in to the receivers is girly EQ though. If your impressed with that, then things can only get better eh? 😀
auplater said:
Of course, Shin, you haven't heard my line source BG dipoles w/wo multieq, so attitude???😉
Since I've spent extensive time with passive efforts to improve room acoustics, perhaps I don't need multi $$$$ computer active digital manipulation to achieve audio nirvana...😎
John L.
Indeed, I must concede that yours is bigger. 😉
The junk built in to the receivers is girly EQ though. If your impressed with that, then things can only get better eh? 😀
junk
One man's junk is another man's treasure...😀
Size does matter in acoustics...😉
I'm only trying to impress my girlie, so I guess this is all the eq. I need...
John L.
One man's junk is another man's treasure...😀
Size does matter in acoustics...😉
I'm only trying to impress my girlie, so I guess this is all the eq. I need...
John L.
Audyssey is great for non-resonant rooms. I lost the link, but Ethan Winer of RealTraps did a writeup where he debunks their claim of lowering the ringing in a room. It doesn't. Hence why they even say that the room has have a good RT60 time before using the Audyssey system.
As an installer (regular wire guy, not an "Audyssey" installer), I find that people love this system. It makes an audible difference and its best benefit is that it intelligently averages over several spots so that it doesn't just fix the sweet spot and leave peaks and nulls for everyone else.
That all being said, it's not a magic bullet. I was considering getting a standalone for my system, but it's just not worth the cost ($2k+). However, if the receiver or preamp you get has it installed, by all means, use it.
My research into it now has me looking at the Behrninger DCX2496 crossover -- since it has Xover, delay, gain, and parametric EQ. The setup will more difficult, but in the end I think I can get a better result. Besides, the DIY is most of the fun 😀
As an installer (regular wire guy, not an "Audyssey" installer), I find that people love this system. It makes an audible difference and its best benefit is that it intelligently averages over several spots so that it doesn't just fix the sweet spot and leave peaks and nulls for everyone else.
That all being said, it's not a magic bullet. I was considering getting a standalone for my system, but it's just not worth the cost ($2k+). However, if the receiver or preamp you get has it installed, by all means, use it.
My research into it now has me looking at the Behrninger DCX2496 crossover -- since it has Xover, delay, gain, and parametric EQ. The setup will more difficult, but in the end I think I can get a better result. Besides, the DIY is most of the fun 😀
m0tion said:
None at all and a great room/speaker combo. But failing that then yes, that's the best, most flexible I've come across so far.
Wasn't trying to be funny, its the truth. For the rest of us there's DRC or better yet physical treatments and a bit low end DRC.
$$$?
And how much moola is involved in this quest for nirvana?
Acourate = $500.00
Computer = $750.00 minimum for older pentium class with associated sound card <=WAG
??? hrs spent screwing around with software, etc.
Looks like an interesting project... don't have time to do this.
I continue to be surprised at the sonic improvements I've achieved with the audyssy app included in my Denon receiver. Sure it has limitations, but with extended listening, I can clearly hear room mode suppresion vs. non-corrected listening, plus inner details are further enhanced over what was already an excellent sounding system. Each instrument in even marginally recorded material is revealed to maximum effect.
My personal experience thus far would indicate one should work first to minimize room - speaker problems as much as possible, then apply room eq. as an enhancement. I doubt it's the panacea that so much marketing hype indicates, but I have experienced a noticeable improvement perceptually (as have several untrained listeners who spontaneously offered their views), with typical comments of "I've never heard low notes like that"... "..it sounds like a live concert" etc.
Of course, ymmv
John L.
m0tion said:
And how much moola is involved in this quest for nirvana?
Acourate = $500.00
Computer = $750.00 minimum for older pentium class with associated sound card <=WAG
??? hrs spent screwing around with software, etc.
Looks like an interesting project... don't have time to do this.
I continue to be surprised at the sonic improvements I've achieved with the audyssy app included in my Denon receiver. Sure it has limitations, but with extended listening, I can clearly hear room mode suppresion vs. non-corrected listening, plus inner details are further enhanced over what was already an excellent sounding system. Each instrument in even marginally recorded material is revealed to maximum effect.
My personal experience thus far would indicate one should work first to minimize room - speaker problems as much as possible, then apply room eq. as an enhancement. I doubt it's the panacea that so much marketing hype indicates, but I have experienced a noticeable improvement perceptually (as have several untrained listeners who spontaneously offered their views), with typical comments of "I've never heard low notes like that"... "..it sounds like a live concert" etc.
Of course, ymmv
John L.
For the hardware? You could do it for $600 I think. For the software? Well... Console is ~$100, Acourate is ~$500 (ridiculous if you ask me), and there are some free FIR convolution engines (not sure which Shin uses). You also need a measurement mic and preamp, so, ~$50 for the ECM8000 and ~$50 for some small preamp. Of course this is with a bare minimum soundcard, you could drop as much as $2000 on just that if you like. Maybe the whole budget shooting match for $1400 shipped?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.