Looking to switch from PC speakers to Bookshelves - Questions

[moonboy403]

Any competent speaker can be corrected by sufficient processing power. Audyssey Multi-EQ is quite effective, but I've no doubt it will continue to be improved. DSPs are our friends.

Audyssey is basically an automatic EQ. While it's good at reducing peaks to a certain degree, it's not gonna help with ringing nor nulls which are all over the frequency range in any typical room. For example, if an EQ boost of 20db is to be applied to counter a null, you might easily overload your amp. In addition, frequency response in a room can change a lot over very small distances (sometimes even just inches). So a correction that helps with one specific spot will not help elsewhere.

JBL LSR6332 would be sweet 🙂

Is that what you're using? 🙂

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Audyssey is basically an automatic EQ. While it's good at reducing peaks to a certain degree, it's not gonna help with ringing nor nulls which are all over the frequency range in any typical room. For example, if an EQ boost of 20db is to be applied to counter a null, you might easily overload your amp. In addition, frequency response in a room can change a lot over very small distances (sometimes even just inches). So a correction that helps with one specific spot will not help elsewhere.

That's why you can take multiple readings at multiple listening positions (up to 8, IIRC) and it will optimize for all of them. It is an integrated solution, and it might very well make the sound worse in one position in order to make it better in another position. A worthy trade-off IMO, assuming that the typical playback scenario is to have more than one listener.

I have no doubt that it will continue to be improved from its current state, which is already much better than what was available, say, 15 years ago. (Can you imagine taking manual measurements at 8 different locations, then somehow optimizing the EQ curves to take all of them into account? Add 7.1 speakers into the mix, and the math becomes impossible! And then there's the added dimension of phase, which no simple EQ can touch, but which Audyssey corrects and seems to consider even more important than frequency response.) I expect that in the near future, A/V receivers will come with infrared cameras, which will tell the DSP how many people are currently in view, and which listening position they are sitting in. On-the-fly, listener-dependent optimizations. The holy grail of audio IMO. Maybe in time it will even be able to tell if you've moved your head an inch to the left, and correct for that!

I'm also sure it's not going to do something stupid like try to correct a narrow floor reflection notch with a huge boost that will overload the amp. Give the Audyssey folks a little credit. And really I'm just using them as an example. I do think they probably have the best algorithms at the moment, but there are plenty of competitors and there's still a lot of development being done. Computing power is still getting cheaper, and figuring out how to make good use of a DSP of equivalent power to, say, an HD4350 is going to take some time.

 

[moonboy403]

That's why you can take multiple readings at multiple listening positions (up to 8, IIRC) and it will optimize for all of them. It is an integrated solution, and it might very well make the sound worse in one position in order to make it better in another position. A worthy trade-off IMO, assuming that the typical playback scenario is to have more than one listener.

I have no doubt that it will continue to be improved from its current state, which is already much better than what was available, say, 15 years ago. (Can you imagine taking manual measurements at 8 different locations, then somehow optimizing the EQ curves to take all of them into account? Add 7.1 speakers into the mix, and the math becomes impossible! And then there's the added dimension of phase, which no simple EQ can touch, but which Audyssey corrects and seems to consider even more important than frequency response.)

Here's a link to a review of the Audyssey.
http://realtraps.com/art_audyssey.htm

I have doubts to its improvement for all 8 locations. Also, how does it deal with reflection which is essential in clarity and imaging? I'm not offered any explanation by Audyssey as to why something works. The only information I can get from Audyssey's website is this: use Audyssey and it'll magically improve everything. It'll be nice if we see some proofs of the Audyssey's many claims.

I'm not opposed to using Audyssey but I don't think it's the be all end all solution. I think it is best used along with room treatments and one should always make their own measurements with something like Room EQ Wizard to see what exactly Audyssey is doing.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Here's a link to a review of the Audyssey.
http://realtraps.com/art_audyssey.htm

LMAO. You give me a review on a site that sells $250 wooden boxes (sold only in pairs) for acoustic treatments. How unbelievably unbiased this guy must be! And yet, his conclusion was still "Listening to a variety of music there was no question that the sound was improved when the MultEQ was engaged." His Stereophile (don't get me started) journalist neighbor wrote in his review:

I can't say the change was blatant, but over the course of weeks it became increasingly apparent that the system without MultiEQ Pro sounded simply inferior, in terms of the clarity of sounds from the low bass to the upper treble, and in terms of imaging all around the compass. ...

The Audyssey Sound Equalizer with MultEQ Pro genuinely enhanced the sound of my system. Once it was installed, I could simply leave it alone and enjoy a more transparent and coherent soundstage. The SE is obviously designed for the lover of music and home theater who is not interested in toys or technology, but in the best possible sound.

I have doubts to its improvement for all 8 locations. Also, how does it deal with reflection which is essential in clarity and imaging? I'm not offered any explanation by Audyssey as to why something works. The only information I can get from Audyssey's website is this: use Audyssey and it'll magically improve everything. It'll be nice if we see some proofs of the Audyssey's many claims.

I'm not opposed to using Audyssey but I don't think it's the be all end all solution. I think it is best used along with room treatments and one should always make their own measurements with something like Room EQ Wizard to see what exactly Audyssey is doing.

I have looked all over Audyssey's site in the MultEQ section but have not seen anything referring to magic. They refer repeatedly to handling time-domain problems (including reflections) and not just frequency response. Of course they do not go deep into the implementation details (proprietary algorithms and all that) but nothing that they say strikes me as snake-oilish in the least. Audyssey was developed by EE Ph.D's at USC spending a whole lot of time and money on measurements and analysis. Tomlinson Holman co-founded Audyssey and helped develop MultEQ. IMO, 'nuff said, right there.

If you haven't seen it yet, read [http://www.audioholics.com/news/on-location-articles/on-location-with-audyssey-laboratories]this Audioholics article[/url] which discusses Audyssey's methods and history, with good bios of the principals of the company. Basically the impetus for Audyssey came about (like most great software) to scratch Tomlinson Holman's own itch. Here is the rough timeline provided in the Audioholics article:

1) Identify the Problem
Chris Kyriakakis & Tom Holman identify the problem and come up with ideas to tackle it. For example, MultEQ was created because Tom was going into theaters with stacks of equipment and taking weeks at a time to complete what was a very laborious process to calibrate a large listening room. Lots of skills were needed and the process was laborious and could not be easily replicated in different rooms. Tom believed there had to be a way to develop an automated way to handle acoustical issues since the procedures and process were essentially repeatable and defined.

2) Research Phase
This is where Sunil Bharitkar gets involved and discovers how specifically Audyssey can fix the problem. For the original MultEQ, he was able to take USC research students and devote quite a bit of manpower to the task, using the tools and software that Audyssey makes available for tackling these issues.

3) Commercialize the Product
Phil Hilmes takes the ball from here, his job primarily being to lead the team of DSP engineers and make the solution practical. This means fitting it onto a DSP chip, making sure it operates in real-time, improving system efficiency, and verifying that the solution still meets the requirements of the product or software algorithm.

Of course room treatments would be better (having a room that doesn't require corrections is better than having to make corrections) , but they require a fair amount of knowledge to create, place, and test. Same with better speakers with flatter response. Even so, the Stereophile reviewer's room, which already had extensive acoustic treatments and high-dollar gear, benefited audibly and measurably from the addition of Audyssey processing. Considering that basic Audyssey processing is available in receivers costing $400, I would say that dollar-for-dollar, Audyssey wins!

ETA: Chris Kyriakakis of Audyssey posts actively as member "audyssey" in the Official Audyssey Thread at AVSforum. E.g. here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=17490386#post17490386 He appears more than willing to answer questions about Audyssey processing.

 

[moonboy403]

LMAO. You give me a review on a site that sells $250 wooden boxes (sold only in pairs) for acoustic treatments. How unbelievably unbiased this guy must be! And yet, his conclusion was still "Listening to a variety of music there was no question that the sound was improved when the MultEQ was engaged." His Stereophile (don't get me started) journalist neighbor wrote in his review:

Before you bash the guy, you should read up on all the articles that he has written on acoustics. He bases his articles and even the Audyssey review on science and hard numbers by actually measuring the room. I don't know what you mean by him being bias as he only based his view on the measurements which you can see yourself (namely the waterfall graph). By, looking at the waterfall graphs, you can clearly see that ringing gotten worse after Audyssey is applied which is opposite of what Audyssey claimed (reduction in ringing).

Moreover, the guy has quite a reputation in acoustics at Gearslutz which is more dedicated for audio engineers.

I have looked all over Audyssey's site in the MultEQ section but have not seen anything referring to magic. They refer repeatedly to handling time-domain problems (including reflections) and not just frequency response. Of course they do not go deep into the implementation details (proprietary algorithms and all that) but nothing that they say strikes me as snake-oilish in the least. Audyssey was developed by EE Ph.D's at USC spending a whole lot of time and money on measurements and analysis. Tomlinson Holman co-founded Audyssey and helped develop MultEQ. IMO, 'nuff said, right there.

Saying something is developed after tons of research and worked on by PhD's mean next to nothing unless they show proofs of their claim (think Dr. Bose and his company Bose). It's that simple since this is science we're talking about. All I wanna see are some hard numbers and measurements along with how their measurements were conducted along with room dimensions to support their claims.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Before you bash the guy, you should read up on all the articles that he has written on acoustics. He bases his articles and even the Audyssey review on science and hard numbers by actually measuring the room. I don't know what you mean by him being bias as he only based his view on the measurements which you can see yourself (namely the waterfall graph). By, looking at the waterfall graphs, you can clearly see that ringing gotten worse after Audyssey is applied which is opposite of what Audyssey claimed (reduction in ringing).

Moreover, the guy has quite a reputation in acoustics at Gearslutz which is more dedicated for audio engineers.

Saying something is developed after tons of research and worked on by PhD's mean next to nothing unless they show proofs of their claim (think Dr. Bose and his company Bose). It's that simple since this is science we're talking about. All I wanna see are some hard numbers and measurements along with how their measurements were conducted along with room dimensions to support their claims.

Ok, but IMO this guy is overemphasizing ringing with respect to other acoustic properties, because ringing is what his own product treats most effectively (and, according to him, his product is the only product available which treats ringing). In all my years of reading about hi-fi, I have never come across anybody who had such a fixation on ringing. I wonder if that fixation has anything to do with his source of income. I'm not denying that ringing is an acoustic problem, one that can be measured and corrected. I'm just questioning its relative importance.

As for whether Audyssey "actually does anything beneficial", you can look at the waterfall graphs that he posted in his review and see for yourself the broad corrections that the Audyssey processor created. The peak at 40Hz or so was smoothed out very nicely, and the deep, 12dB trough around 160Hz was smoothed out by 6dB or so. The subwoofer-only graph also appears greatly smoothed out, with no effective change to the ringing.

I will also note, once again, that despite his criticisms of the system, he stated that the sound was improved by MultEQ. Furthermore, I don't recall seeing any claims of ringing reduction by Audyssey. They do claim that MultEQ's Finite Impuse Response filtering is superior compared with traditional parametric equalization, which introduces all kinds of time-domain errors including ringing.

 

[moonboy403]

Ok, but IMO this guy is overemphasizing ringing with respect to other acoustic properties, because ringing is what his own product treats most effectively (and, according to him, his product is the only product available which treats ringing). In all my years of reading about hi-fi, I have never come across anybody who had such a fixation on ringing. I wonder if that fixation has anything to do with his source of income. I'm not denying that ringing is an acoustic problem, one that can be measured and corrected. I'm just questioning its relative importance.

As for whether Audyssey "actually does anything beneficial", you can look at the waterfall graphs that he posted in his review and see for yourself the broad corrections that the Audyssey processor created. The peak at 40Hz or so was smoothed out very nicely, and the deep, 12dB trough around 160Hz was smoothed out by 6dB or so. The subwoofer-only graph also appears greatly smoothed out, with no effective change to the ringing.

I will also note, once again, that despite his criticisms of the system, he stated that the sound was improved by MultEQ. Furthermore, I don't recall seeing any claims of ringing reduction by Audyssey. They do claim that MultEQ's Finite Impuse Response filtering is superior compared with traditional parametric equalization, which introduces all kinds of time-domain errors including ringing.

I respectfully disagree that ringing isn't as important relatively to other acoustic properties. To me, reduction in ringing, echo, flutter, and flattening FR are all of equal importance.

Secondly, he tells people on Gearslutz exactly how his bass traps (not much different from bass traps by other companies like GIK) are made and often recommend people to DIY whenever possible (Fiberglass boards).

As for Audyssey, I acknowledge the fact that it helps. But it cannot cure a room with horrible acoustics by itself. I stand by my point that the more you treat your room, the more Audyssey will help you.

Lastly, the claim of reduction in ringing is implied in the follow paragraph by Audyssey:

"...Because these reflected copies arrive so close to the direct sound, the brain blends everything together and this results in audible artifacts such as smearing of transients, ringing, and comb filtering... MultEQ filters are specifically designed to address these time domain problems and concentrate most of the signal energy in the direct sound..."

Note: I think we have a pretty healthy discussion going on here. Our discussion is somewhat informative even though it's quite off topic. 🙂

 

[slashbinslashbash]

As for Audyssey, I acknowledge the fact that it helps. But it cannot cure a room with horrible acoustics by itself. I stand by my point that the more you treat your room, the more Audyssey will help you.

I would agree fully with that statement.

However, I would add that Audyssey corrections are the most cost-effective and least knowledge-intensive way to make your system+room sound better. For the average Joe spending $1k on a receiver+speakers, I don't think there's anything better.... to the extent that I'd rather have a $500 receiver with Audyssey and a $500 set of speakers, than a $750 set of speakers and a $250 receiver without Audyssey. A little acoustic knowledge can go a long way in helping to choose one's room décor (absorbant curtains vs. reflective windows), and can aid in acoustics without being an explicit part of the audio system budget, but dedicated acoustic treatments are out of the reach and knowledge of most people.

Lastly, the claim of reduction in ringing is implied in the follow paragraph by Audyssey:

"...Because these reflected copies arrive so close to the direct sound, the brain blends everything together and this results in audible artifacts such as smearing of transients, ringing, and comb filtering... MultEQ filters are specifically designed to address these time domain problems and concentrate most of the signal energy in the direct sound..."

Note: I think we have a pretty healthy discussion going on here. Our discussion is somewhat informative even though it's quite off topic. 🙂

Cool, I hadn't seen those graph pages yet. I can't account for the results that your reviewer mentioned w/r/t ringing, although my guess is that they might have something to do with the almost-square room dimensions that he mentioned. I agree fully that Audyssey is not a panacea and probably cannot improve the sound in all rooms, and that it may make some trade-offs in optimizing one aspect of the sound while diminishing another. However, I think the final results speak for themselves, and I've not yet come across a review of Audyssey where the reviewer states that they would rather not have it, all other things being equal.

I agree that this discussion has been informative (I had never really looked into bass traps before but will probably utilize them whenever the day comes that I create a dedicated home theater room).

 

[CurseTheSky]

So I've had everything setup for 4-5 days now. Here's what I've found:

The Essence STX is less buggy than the outgoing X-Fi drivers wise (so far), but I can't say the same for the hardware. Sometimes late at night I'll wake up to the relays clicking like crazy, and this morning I noticed that my right speaker no longer had any input going to it, despite nothing being changed. I restarted my computer (figuring it was a driver problem), but it didn't help. When I hooked my MP3 player up to the speakers, the right speaker had no issues. When I switched back to output from the computer, it worked fine. I'll call it a fluke for now; hopefully it won't become a continuous problem.

The speakers are... good, but they definitely need an equalizer for the midrange. Without the equalizer settings in the Xonar drivers, the speakers sounded like they were playing inside a cardboard box - definitely worse than the outgoing Z-5500s, which shocked me. However, when I hooked up my Sansa Clip+, they sounded 100% better. I guess part of the "problem" is the opamps on the sound card, which I've read a few complaints about. Still, with the equalizer set the way it is now, they sound WAY better than my previous setup - extremely clear, good sound stage, highs aren't harsh, and hearing little things in songs that I didn't know existed. The bass can be a bit boomy (only ~4" from a wall, rear ported), but it's far better than keeping the Z-5500s sub set at zero and having no bass at all, lest I annoy other people living here.

Overall, I'm satisfied. I wouldn't recommend the Audioengine 5's to anyone looking for a simple plug and play setup (which sort of sucks, since that's what they seem to be designed for), but if you have access to an equalizer (hardware or software) they sound quite good. They have potential (unlike truly junk speakers which will sound like crap no matter what you do to the signal you're passing to them), but it's too bad the midrange is so muddled out of the box. Would I have been better off with the Rotkit 5 G2's or BX5a's? Probably. Do I regret it? Nah. The build quality is excellent, the setup was extremely easy, and the convenience is wonderful. Full color manual (not that you'll need it), plenty of accessory cables, and supposedly excellent customer support.

Thanks once again for the suggestions guys. 🙂

 

[s44]

Following the direction of this thread, you should eventually try the Audioengines on the pre-outs of an AVR with Audyssey. 😉