# To Audyssey or Not to Audyssey



## chris0228 (Feb 25, 2014)

Here is my delima.....purchase the Denon AVR-4520 or Marantz SR-7008, complete with XT32....or purchase eMotiva Seperates and utilize their room correction program and extensive PEQ and manual adjustments to tune my room. I have and currently use REW, have my UMIK-1 calibrated mic, SLP meter, and all the goodies. I want to be able to make manual adjustments as needed and am afraid with the PEQ limitations (2-3 bands?) of XT32, I won't have the flexibility of the 11 bands on the UMC-200. So from a room correction standpoint and not wanting to be limited to only going as far as XT32 will let me go, am I better off with the eMotiva setup as I have more custom PEQ settings to deal with? Here is the gear I will be using: AVR - Denon AVR4520, Marantz SR-7008, eMotiva UMC-200 / XPA-5 DVD - Oppo BDP-103D Speakers - SVS Ultra Bookshelf System 7.1 Sub - SVS SB12 Ultra (1) - Looking to add another in 6-9 months Thanks!


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

Audyssey has no PEQ accessible and, therefore, has no such limitations. Any EQ in those AVRs is proprietary and not a part of Audyssey, XT32 or otherwise.


----------



## chris0228 (Feb 25, 2014)

Yep, sorry you're right. I meant the PEQ limitations of the manual setting on the AVRs themselves. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

Is that a new receiver that Denon is releasing... the 4350? I couldn't find anything on it... or did you mean the 4520? 

I don't think I will buy another receiver without XT32, although I have not seen what the new Emotiva processor will do, so perhaps it is as good or better. I am looking forward to learning more about it. I have one of the new miniDSP DDRC's coming for my two-channel setup.

Granted I do use a DEQ2496, which has all kinds of goodies on it. I use it for delay, PEQ and a shelf filter, in addition to XT32. It is in my very near plans to do away with it and just use XT32 for movies and if needed the PEQs on the PB13 and PC13 Ultras. Then use the DDRC on two-channel.


----------



## chris0228 (Feb 25, 2014)

Ah, the power of proof reading; will do better next time, sorry fellas. So am I to assume that even with good knowledge and skills using REW, built in Sub DSP, PEQ capabilities of the AVR, etc, that Audyssey will always be better? My fear is that I get an AVR with XT32, not be 100% happy with the sound and readings I get from auto room correction, then have limitations on further tweaking the system. Am I over thinking this? What excited me the most about the UMC-200 was the number of bands of PEQ it had. So even if I wasn't happy with its room correction, I'd still have a lot of processing power to get the system property tuned. But, do I necessarily need 11 bands of PEQ? Could I possibly only need a few bands like most AVRs have when tweaking after Audyssey does it's thing?


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

It is not necessarily better in all cases, but I would suspect in most cases it is. The other tools you have make Audyssey's job easier. You may very well get to where you want to be with those tools. If you can do that... and you are happy, then that is what matters.

Audyssey XT32 will smoke a 9 band PEQ unit... in multiples, plus as I understand it, adjust phase alignment, which most (not sure if any can) standalone PEQ's can't do.

Audyssey will typically do a very good job of equalization. The issues I see most people have is how the processor/receiver ends up setting the speaker configuration (size, distance and level), which can all be manually adjusted/fixed after the auto setup and equalization is run. I really like how Audyssey equalizes my system... taking away the anomalies in the response... and I can tailor the bass response with my DEQ after the fact if I so desire... as I do like a little boost in the low end for movies. Otherwise... I like what Audyssey does in the mid to upper areas because it gets it closer to what the producers of the music was hearing when they recorded the music. We are so use to hearing what I call an inaccurate response that we have come to a point of calling it "pure audio". I can't see anything pure about it myself. After listening to a really good equalized response for a while, when I switch back to the "pure audio" sound, I can tell how bad it really was. Of course to each his own and not everyone will agree... I don't care and I am sure they don't either. Everyone likes what they like for a reason.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

The PEQ in an AVR is typically applied to all channels equally. What you need is PEQ, several bands of it, on each channel, independently, including each sub. And that needs to be full parametric. Those are the basic tools you'd need to respond to high resolution measurements. Then, you need to understand that to make those measurements you need multiple measurement points taken for each channel, properly combined into a single result. REW can do this, but the combining process is averaging, which is not what Audyssey does. 

No AVR has the adjustment tools available to the user that Audyssey has available to it, including independent dual-sub cal. The 4520 has the most advanced version of Audyssey ever devised. If you want to one-up that, get the pro cal kit, or hire a pro that has it, buy the Pro license, and do the best cal possible. The Pro software has many features not in the included Audyssey system.

REW plus full external parametric EQ are the tools you use when you don't have Audyssey. To fully calibrate using REW, you'd be adding parametric EQ on each channel, then external power amps after the EQ. That makes a noise that sounds like $$$. Everything needed is already there. No idea why you'd want separates with a 4520, there's really nothing to be gained except for more heat and lights in the rack.


----------



## Dwight Angus (Dec 17, 2007)

Sonnie said:


> Is that a new receiver that Denon is releasing... the 4350? I couldn't find anything on it... or did you mean the 4520?
> 
> I don't think I will buy another receiver without XT32, although I have not seen what the new Emotiva processor will do, so perhaps it is as good or better. I am looking forward to learning more about it. I have one of the new miniDSP DDRC's coming for my two-channel setup.
> 
> Granted I do use a DEQ2496, which has all kinds of goodies on it. I use it for delay, PEQ and a shelf filter, in addition to XT32. It is in my very near plans to do away with it and just use XT32 for movies and if needed the PEQs on the PB13 and PC13 Ultras. Then use the DDRC on two-channel.


I am also thinking about doing away with stand alone Xilica 4080 xp PEQ. I will use my XT32 along with PB13's PEQ for movies.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

While I have no argument with anything that has been suggested, I will present an alternative viewpoint.

Audyssey is fantastic for simplicity - when setup is run "properly," and that is not a trivial matter, it gives great results, but great results can be had with less EQ. I will wager that using PEQ values from REW limited to 6 to 8 filters or so, most critical listeners would be delighted with the results. Focusing first on speaker positioning to get optimal soundstage before applying any EQ, the phase correction becomes less important (unnecessary?) and minimal EQ can often correct the main response anomalies while preserving the speaker's characteristic sound. Audyssey can improve a fair-to-good soundstage, but can detract from a really superb one.

Just another way of looking at things. That said, I am a pretty big fan of Audyssey, too. Just saying, it is not the only way to get there, especially if you like the characteristic voicing of the speakers and already have them set up for a great soundstage.


----------



## Owen Bartley (Oct 18, 2006)

AudiocRaver said:


> Focusing first on speaker positioning to get optimal soundstage before applying any EQ, the phase correction becomes less important (unnecessary?)


I think this bears repeating. Good initial setup, including speaker placement and maybe to an even greater extent, a properly treated room will go a long way toward great sound. Having said that, Audyssey is there to help most people who don't know how to or don't want to deal with things like room treatments, etc. and unless you have the necessary equipment and skills to determine the room issues before EQ, it can be very daunting.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

AudiocRaver also made a comment that I think is spot in regards to preserving a speaker's characteristic sound.

Some of us put a lot of effort into selecting our speakers and in my case the way they sound was the primary reason they made it to the final three contenders and then they were chosen to come live here because of a 50% price reduction during my shopping period.

Granted the Audessey I have personally experienced is not the best available but it pretty much sucked the rich full sound out of the speakers and turned them into something very sterile sounding.
MCACC pretty much does the same thing so I am not picking at Audessey specifically in my application.

I have seen a few posts where people have said they use Audessey for watching movies and think it greatly improves the sound but use pure direct for listening to music and think that also improves the sound.
Anyone in this thread do that?


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

chashint said:


> AudiocRaver also made a comment that I think is spot in regards to preserving a speaker's characteristic sound.
> 
> Some of us put a lot of effort into selecting our speakers and in my case the way they sound was the primary reason they made it to the final three contenders and then they were chosen to come live here because of a 50% price reduction during my shopping period.
> 
> ...


There are several comments *here* that address the Audyssey target curves, and why they may be more appropriate for certain applications. I have not found that Audyssey changes any characteristic sound negatively. What I have noticed is, if speakers are very neutral and un-colored to begin with, Audyssey doesn't seem to do as much, sometimes barely perceptible in a good room. If speakers have a particular spin on reality, like a glossy or elevated high end (air, sparkle, glitter, take your pick of analogous terms), Audyssey will put them back on track to be neutral and natural. Audyssey chose their target curves based on tons of research into the question of what is preferred, and in the case of movie sound, matching the creative environment.


----------



## Fatcat (Aug 17, 2008)

Just stumbled across this thread and thought I might add this into the mix. I recently had a chance to audition an Anthem MRX 310 receiver in my home theater. Having only had experience with Audyssey systems in the past, I was very curious to see how Anthem's ARC system compared. I came away being very impressed. While a computer was required for the calibration proceedure, it wasn't an overly complicated affair. And it allowed me to see what ARC was measuring and exactly how it was correcting each speaker to the target curve. The calibrated system sounded really good to me. I hate to say it but I think I preferred it to what my Denon X-4000 does with MultiXT32. Although I like how the Denon handles my twin subs and calibrates them, the mains and the center sounded really clean and clear through the Anthem system. The sound also seemed to shift less tonally when I moved to different seats.


----------



## JBrax (Oct 13, 2011)

Fatcat said:


> Just stumbled across this thread and thought I might add this into the mix. I recently had a chance to audition an Anthem MRX 310 receiver in my home theater. Having only had experience with Audyssey systems in the past, I was very curious to see how Anthem's ARC system compared. I came away being very impressed. While a computer was required for the calibration proceedure, it wasn't an overly complicated affair. And it allowed me to see what ARC was measuring and exactly how it was correcting each speaker to the target curve. The calibrated system sounded really good to me. I hate to say it but I think I preferred it to what my Denon X-4000 does with MultiXT32. Although I like how the Denon handles my twin subs and calibrates them, the mains and the center sounded really clean and clear through the Anthem system. The sound also seemed to shift less tonally when I moved to different seats.


So you felt XT32 handled the dual subs better but ARC was superior with the front stage. I'm not all that familiar with ARC but intrigued by it. Does ARC do any filtering of the subs?


----------



## Fatcat (Aug 17, 2008)

JBrax said:


> So you felt XT32 handled the dual subs better but ARC was superior with the front stage. I'm not all that familiar with ARC but intrigued by it. Does ARC do any filtering of the subs?


Yes ARC does do filtering to the subs but it only measures one sub. You can use a y-splitter cable and hook up two subs obviously but it'll take a summed measurement. The sub results I got with ARC were good and you can naturally make adjustments after the initial calibration but I like the approach XT-32 and SUB HQ take on my Denon and I don't need to do any additional fiddling afterwards.
Check out the review of the bigger MRX 710 model over here: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/receivers/receivers-reviews/anthem-mrx-710-a-v-receiver.html
It shows a good breakdown of what ARC does.


----------



## JBrax (Oct 13, 2011)

Ok, thanks I'll check it out. I'm happy with my Onkyo but like I said ARC is intriguing.


----------



## Skrill (Feb 4, 2014)

I am a believer in XT32 after getting my X4000 and running it. It's a superb room correction tech, with measurable results (assuming you have some measuring gear).


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

Skrill said:


> I am a believer in XT32 after getting my X4000 and running it. It's a superb room correction tech, with measurable results (assuming you have some measuring gear).


...such as your ears....


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

Ehhh... ears don't measure, they just hear, and most of the time I find incorrectly, as do many others who have claimed at one time or another to have golden ears... and many of those my close friends here at the Shack :bigsmile:

However, that doesn't mean your ears are not golden. I am pretty sure they are the exception rather than the rule though. :huh:


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

Sonnie said:


> Ehhh... ears don't measure, they just hear, and most of the time I find incorrectly, as do many others who have claimed at one time or another to have golden ears... and many of those my close friends here at the Shack :bigsmile:
> 
> However, that doesn't mean your ears are not golden. I am pretty sure they are the exception rather than the rule though. :huh:


In point of fact, you are correct. I was being a bit facetious of course. What I'm getting at is, you can measure all day, but if you can't hear an improvement or degradation, what have you accomplished? I'll be the first to measure things to death, been doing it for 40 years, but I also know that measurements, particularly acoustic ones, can be very ambiguous and misleading. When it comes to "measuring" things like Audyssey with technology that differs in data acquisition so significantly from the process being measured, my experience has shown that there is only a general agreement between things like REW and Audyssey. 

The real question is, which sounds better, and what are we comparing? Audyssey XT32 with SubEQ vs some DSP thing tweaked by reading REW results and dialing them in? Did those values come from a single-point measurement with REW? Do you listen at that single point (answer: no, you have two ears on a head that moves). REW doesn't combine multiple measurements the way Audyssey does, so how can you use REW to "verify" something that's doing it better already? Shouldn't it be the other way around? 

See my point?

In the end, it's what sounds better that matters. Golden ears and measurements not withstanding. Again, I do measure things...pretty much to death...but it's never the final arbiter. In fact, I'll listen first, or I'll easily be biased by my own measurements.

Ears don't "hear incorrectly", but without training what is heard may be interpreted wrongly. Interestingly, current research is pointing to a general preference across a population sample for flat response in small-room systems. So perhaps hearing isn't so flawed after all. 

I see your point, ears don't measure since they don't return repeatable and detailed numeric data, and human interpretation is full of bias and error. Doesn't mean an REW measurement is right either, though. To get useful results that also requires training, understanding, technique, and interpretation. It's just that the process is documented a bit, where as ear training isn't.


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

Yeah... I agree we need to notice an improvement in the sound, as long as we have a good understanding to what that sound should be. My goal is to get it as flat as possible... then I typically bump up the bass a little. But I do lean towards flat over pure audio mode for music. Pro audio guys tell me their studio systems are flat when they do recordings, so why would I not want the same? I think movies are less of a concern... and I look to get the smoothest response I can from the center and subwoofers (I want clean/smooth dialogue). For music I want flat with each speaker matching in response as closely as possible for the best imaging. And yes, I do sit in one position and extended periods of time when listening to music, so my head does not move enough to affect the response enough for me to notice... and imaging can tell you this, if you have heard a good song for long enough and know how it is suppose to image.

REW can indeed combine and average responses, but there is no reason to do so to see what Audyssey does. I am hoping REW is accurate (many recording studios use it) so that when I do get a relatively flat response I can know that response is what it is supposed to sound like. All you need to do is measure each position (in my case the main listening position) with Audyssey off and then measure each position with it on to see how well Audyssey works. I have two boom mics in my room right now... one with the Audyssey mic straight up and one with my measurement straight down... swing one in and one out... tips almost touching (0 degree cal file for the measurement mic). We have already done countless tests where microphone placement is not as critical as some might think. I have measured each ear, each ear plus nose (then averaged them)... measured sitting in the main listening position and not (at each ear and my nose)... and measured nose area only without sitting (which is what I do now). I can get within a dB of the same measurement, which is close enough for me. I don't do multiple seating locations because I prefer to have one very good position with the rest being mediocre vs. all being mediocre. More particularly again for the music. I can't have "mediocre" for music when doing serious music listening. For the other seating positions... rarely does anyone else care. Friends and family think all seats sound great whether I use Audyssey or not... Audyssey is for me... for the most part. Of course even though I only measure one position, the others are at least some better and no worse than if I measured all of them... they all have their anomalies.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

Sonnie said:


> Pro audio guys tell me their studio systems are flat when they do recordings, so why would I not want the same? I think movies are less of a concern...


Music studios unfortunately are not standardized, though they tend towards flat, their bass management is all over the place, and there's no loudness reference at all. All of that is standardized in film dubbing stages.


Sonnie said:


> REW can indeed combine and average responses, but there is no reason to do so to see what Audyssey does. I am hoping REW is accurate (many recording studios use it) so that when I do get a relatively flat response I can know that response is what it is supposed to sound like. All you need to do is measure each position (in my case the main listening position) with Audyssey off and then measure each position with it on to see how well Audyssey works.


 REW does a simple average, and with every new measurement added to the average the resolution decreases. Audyssey's fuzzy clustering eliminates single-point anomalous data from the average, so each additional measurement improves resolution of measurements highlighting the key and prevailing issues. Yes, you can see Audyssey's action with REW, just not in any detail. 


Sonnie said:


> Audyssey is for me... for the most part. Of course even though I only measure one position, the others are at least some better and no worse than if I measured all of them... they all have their anomalies.


If you're only measuring one point with Audyssey, you've essentially crippled it. You need as many measurements as possible, at least the full 8 in XT, and more in Pro. You can cluster them fairly close together if you want a tightly EQ'd "bubble" just for you, but a single point Audyssey filter serves only to show it is operating, the filter won't be at all correct, and can sound very strange. In Pro calibrations, I do at least a dozen points, but I will "weight" a few around the "money" seats. 

The key to understanding Audyssey is this: more points equals higher resolution, which is the exact opposite of REW. However, a single point REW is pretty meaningless too. If you're not seeing that, there may be a bit of smoothing going on hiding the results. Smoothing also reduces measurement resolution. In fact, just about everything you can do in REW decreases resolution, which is necessary just to make sense of it. The other issue is that most of the data collected by REW is above 1KHz, even when you're looking down to 20Hz. That's a problem with FFTs in general, and one that Audyssey has worked around. Audyssey resolution at the low end is thousands of times higher than REW.


----------



## Skrill (Feb 4, 2014)

Sonnie and Gazoinik,

I think you are both correct. I find that since I got REW and measurement mic - I spend as much time running sweeps and tweaking as I do just playing content. I need to just stop measuring and start enjoying. 

That said -- love my XT32 -- but I think REW does allow me pave away few peaks and boost a few small valleys with what I believe are good results. I have an SMS-1 and I like how REW lets me logically design the filter parameters. 

Regards

CT


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

The studios don't need bass management for stereo recordings (I am referring to two-channel music, not movies)... and nearly all of the pro guys I know will tell you their systems are flat. Many of them use REW to measure them because of how accurate it is. I have no reason to argue with them or doubt them... too many of them have confirmed it and compared REW to many other measurement sources. John developed a stellar program that 100,000's use... not sure why you want to basically diss it like you are doing. REW provides more than enough detail for in home use... even enough for pro audio studios... so it is fine for me and most everyone else reading these forums. Keep in mind that we don't need to see 512 points of resolution in the bass region to see how something sounds.

I do multiple measurements, just in one position (more measurements equals higher resolution... it does not have to be multiple "different" points - it can be if you want it, but not a necessity and not the best for my listening). We have tested dozens of setups with multiple measurement points vs one... and even one vs a cluster... I and several others keep coming back to one as the best sound for the main listening position for music. The cluster is good, and Wayne wrote the Audyssey FAQ here recommending clusters, although I believe he now prefers one location like I do. Nothing at all sounds odd about it... it sounds spectacular to say the least. At this very moment I have about as close to the best sound as I have ever heard anywhere... and I am not the only one that agrees with that. So I (and others) must be doing something right. 

YMMV... you can keep doing what you do ... and I will keep doing what I do. :bigsmile:

Anyway... I have said all I plan to say on this subject. People can use whatever they desire and decide for themselves what is sufficient. I only need to convince one person, that's me. The OP's question is to Audyssey or not... I recommend yes. :T


----------



## primetimeguy (Jun 3, 2006)

Sonnie, by saying you prefer flat to pure direct does this mean you use the audyssey flat/music curve for music listening? What about movies?


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

I currently use Audyssey Music for music and Audyssey Movies with Dynamic EQ for movies. There is no "Flat" option with my Onkyo 3010.

I am about to hook up my miniDSP Dirac unit for music and will continue to use XT32 for movies. Wayne just finished his review on it and it seems to do about the same as XT32, but I do want to experiment with clusters vs. one position on measuring with it as well.


----------



## JBrax (Oct 13, 2011)

My simple answer to Audyssey is a resounding yes. I measure 3 seating positions the 8 times Audyssey allows. I basically have 2 main positions so those 2 positions get the additional measuring. I like what Audyssey does in my room and find it a bit dull when turned off.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

gazoink said:


> In point of fact, you are correct. I was being a bit facetious of course. What I'm getting at is, you can measure all day, but if you can't hear an improvement or degradation, what have you accomplished? I'll be the first to measure things to death, been doing it for 40 years, but I also know that measurements, particularly acoustic ones, can be very ambiguous and misleading. When it comes to "measuring" things like Audyssey with technology that differs in data acquisition so significantly from the process being measured, my experience has shown that there is only a general agreement between things like REW and Audyssey.
> 
> The real question is, which sounds better, and what are we comparing? Audyssey XT32 with SubEQ vs some DSP thing tweaked by reading REW results and dialing them in? Did those values come from a single-point measurement with REW? Do you listen at that single point (answer: no, you have two ears on a head that moves). REW doesn't combine multiple measurements the way Audyssey does, so how can you use REW to "verify" something that's doing it better already? Shouldn't it be the other way around?


First, I am in total agreement that in any professional setting or one where system performance is critical, using multiple measurement points with Audyssey gives the highest probability of a successful and satisfactory filter set for the very reasons you have mentioned. Even in a home setting, most will choose to follow the prescribed approach...

because they feel compelled to,
because they find the process rewarding, 
because they do not have the confidence to try things a different way,
because they have a lot of variation around the head position and need to.
But there are those who have gone through that process many times and have through personal experience found that the one-position shortcut in their home environment is totally satisfactory and saves a lot of time and trouble. I do not recommend it for those who are inexperienced with Audyssey or do not have the means to verify the accuracy of the result with detailed multiple measurements via REW at least once in awhile.

A single microphone position calibration of Audyssey can work under the following conditions

A single listening seat is all that is cared about.
The listener is willing to keep his head “in a vice,” as many like to put it, while listening to his music.
The listener is happy with the amount of correction given.
The listener can use Room EQ Wizard or some other measurement program to verify with multiple measurements around the head area from time to time, that there is little variation in the measurements for that area.
 The listener is willing to make minor sacrifices in the sound quality versus the full blown Audyssey setup for the trade-off of a whole lot of time saved. There are few of us who have the Pro kits and Pro-capable AVR or network save/restore capability. So most are stuck with the one last setting run. It is far from unheard of that going through a full run can end up giving a quirky, bad result from time to time. Anyone who has had that happen more than once in a session may be looking for a way to get a quicker result.
Audyssey run at a single mic location position, with the minimum three runs at the same position, can get very flat response and effective filtering for a great soundstage and solid, tight imaging. I have witnessed this with XT32 and with XT. It is also helpful if the listener is experienced and has a fairly good idea what to listen for and can tell readily if the results are much less than optimal.

I would never recommend it as a proper way to do things. I would never recommend it for less experienced users less likely to be able to tell if they have a good result. But for the experienced user who finds himself moving the microphone the 50th time in a session trying to get a good run, and finds himself wishing that he was listening to music instead of taking measurements, I suggest it is worth a try. All due respect to your expertise and experience with the technology, and again I am not arguing with any of the points you have made. Simply saying it is a possible alternative for those under the right circumstances.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

On the one-mic-position Audyssey approach:

Almost forgot, and this point has been made in other discussions recently. A thick, plushy, soft blanket folded over several times and draped over the back of the listener’s chair can go a long ways toward reducing and even eliminating the very variation are hoping not to find there. It stays in place for all measurements and listening. It works great.


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

I generally qualify who I recommend single mic placements to... those who prefer equalized music listening, have a dead center listening position, and are the only one in the room on many occasions or family/friends are not that concerned about equalized sound. In my situation, I am the only one in the room for the most part... probably 90% of the time. My family and our friends who do come over occasionally to watch a movie with us could care less whether their seat it Audysized. They can sit on the floor and think its the best thing they have ever heard. I have talked with countless people who have a similar situation to mine... and continue to talk with them every day. Some of them don't seem to care one way or another... but the serious music listener is usually very interested in trying new things to improve their sound... and I have had several call me and tell me they are extremely happier with the single mic results vs. what they had been doing with multiple mic placements. Many even wonder why Audyssey does not mention it as an option. One word... marketing!

Perhaps we will start a thread for multiple vs single vs cluster mic locations, as to not continue to derail the OP's thread. I apologize!


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

Sonnie said:


> The studios don't need bass management for stereo recordings (I am referring to two-channel music, not movies)...


 I didn't mean to imply they did. Satellite/sub systems with bass management are indeed rare in music recording studios. I do have several clients with them in recording studios, though I admit they are not the norm. Odd too, because in one room I service there would be no hope of even close to flat bass without it, and that's a two channel room. The industry trends are puzzling, aren't they? The Satellite/sub concept was developed form music recording studios by Ken Kreisel, don't know why it never proliferated better. Probably because of the "art" aspect in music studios. 


Sonnie said:


> and nearly all of the pro guys I know will tell you their systems are flat.


 Yes, they will tell you that. Unfortunately, I've measured and calibrated far to many recording studios to buy into that claim very often. Flat usually means flat from 200Hz and up. Bass is still a pain, usually quite ragged, and mostly it's the "the big guys" with a tuning budget that have it figured out. Even then, they're not "flat" by most common definitions. Then there's the "kicker" to please the client. That's not a flat curve, ever. But that's the biz. 


Sonnie said:


> Many of them use REW to measure them because of how accurate it is. I have no reason to argue with them or doubt them... too many of them have confirmed it and compared REW to many other measurement sources. John developed a stellar program that 100,000's use... not sure why you want to basically diss it like you are doing.


 I'm terribly sorry if what I was "doing" seems like imparting disrespect. I certainly don't mean it that way. I have tremendous respect for John and REW. It's an amazing tool, and cannot be equalled or surpassed without a very significant expenditure. I use it myself, along with many other tools. I do however recognize it's limitations. My "disrespect" was unintentional. I was merely stating the differences between two technologies. It's not just my opinion, it's all well documented, especially the low frequency resolution issue. Now, as to the need for high-res at LF, that may be a matter of opinion. I do find it odd when folks use a lower-res tool to verify the action of a higher-res one. To be fair, it's not an REW-only problem, it's all swept linear FFTs. And is one of the problems Audyssey set out to solve. Plenty of references on this, again, no need to go into it here. 


Sonnie said:


> REW provides more than enough detail for in home use


Yes, if the user learns to use it correctly


Sonnie said:


> ... even enough for pro audio studios... so it is fine for me and most everyone else reading these forums.


 Well, almost everyone ;-). Look, I use REW. It's a measurement tool, and an excellent one with far more capability than the average user will ever understand much less use. Audyssey isn't a measurement tool in that sense at all. In fact, one of the biggest frustrations I have with Audyssey is it collects all this wonderful high-res data and doesn't let us see it! Graphs without scaling...really??? Even the Pro app falls down there. Yes, I know why, but it's irritating. REW's data is readily available, it has the tools to utilize it, and is open to the user far beyond most analysis tools. It's a matter of understanding what tool to use when and where. REW doesn't do everything well, but then nothing really does. It's a tool, so is Audyssey, but with different applications. 


Sonnie said:


> Keep in mind that we don't need to see 512 points of resolution in the bass region to see how something sounds.


 Some do, some don't. If you want detailed and meaningful data over an area rather than a point it matters quite a bit. One method improves resolution, the other degrades it. Agree to disagree?


Sonnie said:


> I do multiple measurements, just in one position (more measurements equals higher resolution... it does not have to be multiple "different" points - it can be if you want it, but not a necessity and not the best for my listening). We have tested dozens of setups with multiple measurement points vs one... and even one vs a cluster... I and several others keep coming back to one as the best sound for the main listening position for music. The cluster is good, and Wayne wrote the Audyssey FAQ here recommending clusters, although I believe he now prefers one location like I do. Nothing at all sounds odd about it... it sounds spectacular to say the least. At this very moment I have about as close to the best sound as I have ever heard anywhere... and I am not the only one that agrees with that. So I (and others) must be doing something right.
> 
> YMMV... you can keep doing what you do ... and I will keep doing what I do. :bigsmile:


 Pretty much going to happen. Just so you know, a single point measured many times short-circuits one of Audyssey's prime advantages. But anyone is welcome to do that and prefer the results. The point of clusters or spaced measurements is well documented, no need to belabor it here.


Sonnie said:


> Anyway... I have said all I plan to say on this subject. People can use whatever they desire and decide for themselves what is sufficient. I only need to convince one person, that's me. The OP's question is to Audyssey or not... I recommend yes. :T


I couldn't agree more!


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

Just to clarify... the pro guys I know obtained REW to help get their studios flat. They use it for full range frequency response, not 200Hz and up... they use several features... waterfalls, decay, etc... and to help in equalization and acoustically treating the room for the mid to higher frequencies. And when I say flat, I don't mean ruler flat, but smooth, with a specific target curve... which may be different for different genres of music. 

I was also referring to the big boys too... you know their studios have a smooth response. 

I think you missed my whole point behind the studios/flat/REW comments. It was to justify why I like to equalize for music. These studios are not producing the music I listen to and playing it back in their studios on a system that has a response that is all over the place... it is extremely smooth. That is how I want to hear my music too... and I cannot... nor will anyone else be able to, if they are measuring multiple listening positions scattered about a room. It will NOT produce the best imaging and soundstage for music... period! You can do pretty good with clusters, but it gets even better with multiple measurements in your main primary listening position, particularly if it is set up for dead center placement and you have worked on proper speaker placement prior to using Audyssey... like we did on our speaker evaluations. 

Now... I promise I am done... again I apologize to the OP.


----------



## primetimeguy (Jun 3, 2006)

Sonnie said:


> Just to clarify... the pro guys I know obtained REW to help get their studios flat. They use it for full range frequency response, not 200Hz and up... they use several features... waterfalls, decay, etc... and to help in equalization and acoustically treating the room for the mid to higher frequencies. And when I say flat, I don't mean ruler flat, but smooth, with a specific target curve... which may be different for different genres of music.
> 
> I was also referring to the big boys too... you know their studios have a smooth response.
> 
> ...


But is your single point where your right ear or left ear is?


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

primetimeguy said:


> But is your single point where your right ear or left ear is?


If measurements show that there is very little variation in the curves between several measurement points, then it is reasonably valid - and effective - to pick one of those points to represent them all, in this case center of head for timing purposes.


----------

