SSP's

Kal Rubinson

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2010
2,360
697
1,700
NYC
www.stereophile.com
It is selectable but it has been found that for it to properly correct the more problematic frequencies that you have to use a 5Khz top frequency.
I suspect that this has to do with the amount of correction its capable of doing. If you're room has fewer problems, then maybe you can run a higher frequency as you're not using up resources as early on.
Can you provide a reference for this? My experience is limited to my own room(s) which are moderately well-treated acoustically.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
FYI, I am fairly certain we are running Anthem correction full-range as that is the default and I don't think anyone mucked with turning down the max correction frequency.
 

Mark Seaton

WBF Technical Expert (Speaker & Acoustics)
May 21, 2010
381
141
390
47
Chicago, IL
www.seatonsound.net
As I recently mentioned to a customer after wasting waaaay too many hours in tweaking a target curve in dealing with a non-ideal room, I can only hope that some upper tier manufacturer decides to offer a premium version of Audyssey XT32 with more direct ability to adjust the target curve and ideally allow comparison between curves without having to do a full-download of filters. Even adding a second memory for the filters would allow a comparison of two curves and none which would speed things greatly. The time required to load small changes to a target curve to see if you have made enough or too much of an adjustment is painful. This is the primary reason I'm interested in seeing what Trinnov and AP20 or DL2 can offer. Of course the reality and irony is that without a very capable automagic function (credit to D.Erskine ;) ) the audience is not likely to be wide enough to support, as few will take the time or have the knowledge to do anything useful with heavy manual adjustments.

I would agree that ARC can be as or more useful with limited tinkering than most of the auto-EQ systems, but the very limited user adjustment sets limits on what can be achieved or adjusted. If you add the ability to take some frequency response measurements to any of these, you can better see what is happening and adjust your chosen measurement locations to get widely varying results.

Of course at the moment I have little time to actually tinker in detail with these various options. Hopefully I might be able to make some time this summer.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
The Wisdom Audessey Pro processor has three memories and lets you switch between them in about a second. It is quite useful in that regard.
 

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
I had read ~ a year ago that ADA was noodling Trinnov inclusion into the Rhapsody Mach IV in future, albeit with less functionality than the stand-alone Trinnov box. Dunno if this is still in the cards/abandoned.

I don't know, but from the couple links I provided a few posts back, and also from further reading; the ADA Rhapsody Mach IV and IVB Surround Processors are usually pair with one of the three Teqs (Trinnov EQ; Teq4, Teq8, or Teq12) for full Room Correction and Optimizing EQ.

But who knows what the future reserved... Because eventually with more effective algorithms compression into smaller and much more powerful DSP chips, everything will be more miniaturized and all that Jazz...
- That is exactly what's happening with Audyssey MultEQ XT32, as Chris said before.
It is amazing that you now have over ten thousand digital filters all across the audio spectrum, from 10 Hz to 24 Khz!
Is it for each channel from an 11.2-channel setup? If yes that is simply mind boggling!

____________________________

All of this is very nice, but there is still a price to pay in my humble opinion, and in particular with Music listening!
And that is that with all that digital filtering you can still hear the effects!
{With Movies it ain't so much obvious and it has a great benefit in the Subwoofer channel(s), as well in limiting the peaks and nuls in your room for a much better overall constant balance.}

I am not an expert on this; I can only relate from limited personal experience and also from the readings of my peers.
I believe it requires a lot of experimentation, and with all the variables...

For any gain in life there is a lost somewhere in the chain! And this cannot be any further from the truth when it comes to DIGITAL filtration and DSP processing power. Me think!
 
Last edited:

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
Last edited:

RUR

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
647
3
0
SoCal
I don't know, but from the couple links I provided a few posts back, and also from further reading; the ADA Rhapsody Mach IV and IVB Surround Processors are usually pair with one of the three Teqs (Trinnov EQ; Teq4, Teq8, or Teq12) for full Room Correction and Optimizing EQ.

Nevermind. Apparently, ADA have abandoned any plans to integrate the Mach IV with Trinnov:

As for internal TEQ or external TEQ, originally (way back when), we thought that we could port Trinnov into a chip (the initial internal scheme for the Cinema Rhapsody Mach IV). Unfortunately, the processing power was simply not there and in a way, I am glad we abandoned that approach because it would have forced us to release a really lite version of Trinnov.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=19990414#post19990414
 

JimP

New Member
Mar 23, 2011
7
0
0
Can you provide a reference for this? My experience is limited to my own room(s) which are moderately well-treated acoustically.

Sorry it took so long to respond. I don't seem to be getting email notifications of post.

Here is where jayray says that 5000hz is the recommended upper limit by Anthem. Earlier in the thread users were using higher limits and there were problems equalizing. At some point, it was decided that 5000hz was the recommended limit. Their new receivers also use the 5000hz limit.

Question in my mind is do you really need equalization up to a much higher frequency or is 5000hz really enough. Since hearing goes to 20,000hz (mine only goes to 11,000hz), it would see that you would at least want it to equalize up to what you can hear.

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3020-SSP-s/page3
 

Kal Rubinson

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2010
2,360
697
1,700
NYC
www.stereophile.com
Sorry it took so long to respond. I don't seem to be getting email notifications of post.

Here is where jayray says that 5000hz is the recommended upper limit by Anthem. Earlier in the thread users were using higher limits and there were problems equalizing. At some point, it was decided that 5000hz was the recommended limit. Their new receivers also use the 5000hz limit.
Well, I take all that with a grain of salt. The consensus on the AVSForum thread, when I was a participant, was exactly the opposite: EQ all the way. Of course, if there is a shortage of DSP capability in the face of a difficult acoustic situation, I could understand limiting application to the upper octaves in order to get the sub-Schroder frequency range correct. That DSP issue, afaik, is the basis of the <5KHz limit on the current AVRs.

Question in my mind is do you really need equalization up to a much higher frequency or is 5000hz really enough. Since hearing goes to 20,000hz (mine only goes to 11,000hz), it would see that you would at least want it to equalize up to what you can hear.
My ad hoc observation is that using ARC as full-range as possible is better than limiting it. I am not alone in this position.
 

JimP

New Member
Mar 23, 2011
7
0
0
Well, I take all that with a grain of salt. The consensus on the AVSForum thread, when I was a participant, was exactly the opposite: EQ all the way. Of course, if there is a shortage of DSP capability in the face of a difficult acoustic situation, I could understand limiting application to the upper octaves in order to get the sub-Schroder frequency range correct. That DSP issue, afaik, is the basis of the <5KHz limit on the current AVRs.

My ad hoc observation is that using ARC as full-range as possible is better than limiting it. I am not alone in this position.

All I'm doing is passing on the current recommendation. Don't shoot the messenger.
 
Last edited:

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
Just for information here there is a review on the Anthem MRX 700 A/V Receiver in the April-May 2011 issue of Sound & Vision by Daniel Kumin.

And in it he said that; "On a stereo 96/24 frequency-response sweep, the Anthem's output remained perfectly flat to roughly 5 Khz, beyond which point it rolled off at about 2 dB per octave, reaching -6 dB at 32 Khz, where output essentially disappeared. I'm completely at a loss to explain this anomaly."

Also he said that; "The MRX's D/A linearity showed virtually perfect response to signal levels as low as -80 dB (re: 0 dB full-scale), but was 6 dB negative (too small) at -90 and and unlockable
at -100, suggesting a least-significant-bit flaw, or a math error."


Those are from the Test Bench section.

There is more on the review itself, regarding some genuine features missing for a receiver that retails for $2,000. But this thread is not about that.
 
Last edited:

Kal Rubinson

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2010
2,360
697
1,700
NYC
www.stereophile.com
All I'm doing is passing on the current recommendation. Don't shoot the messenger.
I inferred from your use of the term "recommendation" that it was either official (from Anthem) or the result of some controlled test. I apologize for my assumptions.
 

Drudge

New Member
Jan 22, 2011
2
0
0
Hi guys,

I'm still waiting to see a direct comparison between Audyssey and the Dirac Live approach to RC.I've been reading about some of the principles behind each of these correction techniques and it is complex to say the least, once you get into all the filter and DSP speak.Most of it is still over my head.From what I gather,alot of the difference in these two technologies is how they each analyze the measurement data and then determine the filters.

When it comes to "mixed phase" vs "minimum phase" FIR filters there are camps that support each as being a better approach.I've read that "mixed phase" has advantages when used in live sound applications because of reduced latency,but "mixed phase" FIR could also also result in unstable filters.Audyssey uses the "minimum phase" approach,but they are not text book minimum phase and are "tweaked" according to an older AVS Audyssey forum post.I'm curious if the differing approaches between the two RC technologies will actually result in significantly different "audible" results if they are used in the same manner to correct the same room using the same exact mic positions.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Hi. Welcome to the forum. Very nice first post! :)

I'm curious if the differing approaches between the two RC technologies will actually result in significantly different "audible" results if they are used in the same manner to correct the same room using the same exact mic positions.
At least in the case of existing systems, they definitely sound different. Here is how a few systems compared to each other in Harman testing:



Clearly then there are very different responses out of each system.
 

Drudge

New Member
Jan 22, 2011
2
0
0
Hi. Welcome to the forum. Very nice first post! :)


At least in the case of existing systems, they definitely sound different. Here is how a few systems compared to each other in Harman testing:



Clearly then there are very different responses out of each system.

Hi Amir,

That's what is so interesting to me about digital room correction,these systems all interpret and process the data from the measurements in different ways and with differing pyschoacoustic approaches that can make for some interesting results.With the Audyssey and Dirac systems I'm very interested in the how the differing FIR filter approaches match up to each other when it comes to the impulse response correction and the resulting frequency response result.

I don't know though if it's possible to do a "head to head" test between just the filter techniques involved in each system without involving the entire room correction architecture(different analyzing techniques/algorithms etc.),which of course are different and for the most part proprietary.
 

Kal Rubinson

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2010
2,360
697
1,700
NYC
www.stereophile.com

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
Got a baby due in August, so I gotta ask... Is the DHC-80.2 really worth twice as much as the Marantz AV7005? They have the same room correction, right? What's the Integra got that the Marantz doesn't?

http://us.marantz.com/us/Products/P...CatId=AVSeparates&SubCatId=0&ProductId=AV7005

Audyssey MultEQ XT32, with over 10,000 filters!

The Marantz AV7005 has only Audyssey MultEQ XT with hundreds of filters, and much less in the satellite speakers.
And the Marantz is not THX Ultra2 Plus certified, and it ain't video ISF certified either.

...And few more things...
And I don't think the Marantz has Audyssey HT Sub EQ (for multiple subs EQ). But I might be wrong.

Me think that the Integra DHC-80-2 Surround Processor is one of the very best value out there; or the Onkyo PR-SC5508 pre/pro for that matter.
This last one could be had for about $1,400 or less!
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing