[JimCate]

I'm interested in the reactions of other audiophiles who have ventured
into digital signal processing systems, such as Audyssey. Are you
generally satisfied with the quality of DSP-processed audio, such as
Audyssey processsed, as compared with analog signals processed in an
"analog-bypass" mode? In my own experience, for example, so far
Audyssey-processed, multi-channel SACD signals seem to be "smoother,"
and multi-channel signals more balanced, but I seem to loose some of the
high frequencies and some bass compared with an analog-bypass mode. - In
effect, the signal seems to be somewhat "veiled."

Jim Cate

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 21 Feb 2009 21:38:14 GMT, JimCate wrote:

I'm interested in the reactions of other audiophiles who have ventured
into digital signal processing systems, such as Audyssey. Are you
generally satisfied with the quality of DSP-processed audio, such as
Audyssey processsed, as compared with analog signals processed in an
"analog-bypass" mode? In my own experience, for example, so far
Audyssey-processed, multi-channel SACD signals seem to be "smoother,"
and multi-channel signals more balanced, but I seem to loose some of the
high frequencies and some bass compared with an analog-bypass mode. - In
effect, the signal seems to be somewhat "veiled."

Well, you do lose the modal bumps in the bass and, depending on the
version and settings for your particular Audyssey, there is an
intentional HF roll-off in the default Audyssey curve.

Kal

[JimCate]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On 21 Feb 2009 21:38:14 GMT, JimCate wrote:


I'm interested in the reactions of other audiophiles who have ventured
into digital signal processing systems, such as Audyssey. Are you
generally satisfied with the quality of DSP-processed audio, such as
Audyssey processsed, as compared with analog signals processed in an
"analog-bypass" mode? In my own experience, for example, so far
Audyssey-processed, multi-channel SACD signals seem to be "smoother,"
and multi-channel signals more balanced, but I seem to loose some of the
high frequencies and some bass compared with an analog-bypass mode. - In
effect, the signal seems to be somewhat "veiled."


Well, you do lose the modal bumps in the bass and, depending on the
version and settings for your particular Audyssey, there is an
intentional HF roll-off in the default Audyssey curve.

Kal


I have the NAD 175, which as you know has several Audyssey response
curve options. With each of them, high frequencies such as those from
cymbals and other such instruments are often missing. - It could be my
hearing, or my settings, room acoustics, the recording, or something
else (my bad). But if that were the case, why do they reappear, in
balance with the rest of the orchestra, when I switch to analog bypass?

Jim

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 22 Feb 2009 00:24:26 GMT, JimCate wrote:

Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On 21 Feb 2009 21:38:14 GMT, JimCate wrote:


I'm interested in the reactions of other audiophiles who have ventured
into digital signal processing systems, such as Audyssey. Are you
generally satisfied with the quality of DSP-processed audio, such as
Audyssey processsed, as compared with analog signals processed in an
"analog-bypass" mode? In my own experience, for example, so far
Audyssey-processed, multi-channel SACD signals seem to be "smoother,"
and multi-channel signals more balanced, but I seem to loose some of the
high frequencies and some bass compared with an analog-bypass mode. - In
effect, the signal seems to be somewhat "veiled."


Well, you do lose the modal bumps in the bass and, depending on the
version and settings for your particular Audyssey, there is an
intentional HF roll-off in the default Audyssey curve.

Kal


I have the NAD 175, which as you know has several Audyssey response
curve options. With each of them, high frequencies such as those from
cymbals and other such instruments are often missing. - It could be my
hearing, or my settings, room acoustics, the recording, or something
else (my bad). But if that were the case, why do they reappear, in
balance with the rest of the orchestra, when I switch to analog bypass?

First, do you know what the FR actually is before and after the
Audyssey correction? Often, users have adapted to the peaky FR that
they have had for years and find the corrected FR lacking. This
requires re-adaptation on the part of the listener.

Second, listeners can actually prefer a non-corrected response,
despite its irregularity, and such personal preferences are at the
heart of so-called "house curves."

Third, as I stated before, Audyssey usually implements a correction
curve that includes elimination of peaky bass and a gentle treble
roll-off. In addition, the "Athena" curve of the NAD correction has a
midbass bump to compensate for the loss of "room gain." I have no
personal experience with it but all of that can account for what you
are perceiving.

So, have you done any independent measurements to confirm that what
you perceive is what is happening?

Kal

Jim

[JimCate]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 22 Feb 2009 00:24:26 GMT, JimCate wrote:


Kalman Rubinson wrote:


On 21 Feb 2009 21:38:14 GMT, JimCate wrote:



I'm interested in the reactions of other audiophiles who have ventured
into digital signal processing systems, such as Audyssey. Are you
generally satisfied with the quality of DSP-processed audio, such as
Audyssey processsed, as compared with analog signals processed in an
"analog-bypass" mode? In my own experience, for example, so far
Audyssey-processed, multi-channel SACD signals seem to be "smoother,"
and multi-channel signals more balanced, but I seem to loose some of the
high frequencies and some bass compared with an analog-bypass mode. - In
effect, the signal seems to be somewhat "veiled."


Well, you do lose the modal bumps in the bass and, depending on the
version and settings for your particular Audyssey, there is an
intentional HF roll-off in the default Audyssey curve.

Kal


I have the NAD 175, which as you know has several Audyssey response
curve options. With each of them, high frequencies such as those from
cymbals and other such instruments are often missing. - It could be my
hearing, or my settings, room acoustics, the recording, or something
else (my bad). But if that were the case, why do they reappear, in
balance with the rest of the orchestra, when I switch to analog bypass?


First, do you know what the FR actually is before and after the
Audyssey correction? Often, users have adapted to the peaky FR that
they have had for years and find the corrected FR lacking. This
requires re-adaptation on the part of the listener.

Second, listeners can actually prefer a non-corrected response,
despite its irregularity, and such personal preferences are at the
heart of so-called "house curves."

Third, as I stated before, Audyssey usually implements a correction
curve that includes elimination of peaky bass and a gentle treble
roll-off. In addition, the "Athena" curve of the NAD correction has a
midbass bump to compensate for the loss of "room gain." I have no
personal experience with it but all of that can account for what you
are perceiving.

So, have you done any independent measurements to confirm that what
you perceive is what is happening?

Kal

Jim

Nope. I haven't done independent measurements. (Did you really think
there was a reasonable chance that I had, or were you just trying to
make a point?) - Actually, that's why I posted my question. - To get the
opinions of a variety of audiophiles who have tried Audyssey and/or
other DSP processing.

I'm wondering. - What speakers are you using for your own evaluations?
Are they the Maggie 1.6 speakers that you have used in the past?

Jim

[Steve[_15_]]

I have a related question - does anybody have experience of some of
the cheaper DSP options for us lesser mortals who don't want to shell
out for the high end stuff. Two solutions from the pro audio world
that interest me (I have no experience but am thinking of trying one
for a stereo system) are;

1) Behringer DEQ2496 still available and reviewed here;

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...acurve2496.htm

2) KRK ERGO described here - the interesting twist here is that is
uses Lyndorf room correction system;

http://www.krksys.com/ergo/intro.php
http://www.krksys.com/ergo/technology-room-perfect.php

Steve

[Kalman Rubinson[_3_]]

On 23 Feb 2009 04:06:37 GMT, JimCate wrote:

Nope. I haven't done independent measurements. (Did you really think
there was a reasonable chance that I had, or were you just trying to
make a point?) -

Yup.

Actually, that's why I posted my question. - To get the
opinions of a variety of audiophiles who have tried Audyssey and/or
other DSP processing.

www.avsforum.com is a great source of information and discussion
about Audyssey. Even the company founder hangs out there.

I'm wondering. - What speakers are you using for your own evaluations?
Are they the Maggie 1.6 speakers that you have used in the past?

??? Never owned Maggies but reviewed a set some time back. I have B&W
802Ds in one system and Paradigm Studio/60s in the other.

Kal

[Steven Sullivan]

JimCate wrote:
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 22 Feb 2009 00:24:26 GMT, JimCate wrote:


Kalman Rubinson wrote:


On 21 Feb 2009 21:38:14 GMT, JimCate wrote:



I'm interested in the reactions of other audiophiles who have ventured
into digital signal processing systems, such as Audyssey. Are you
generally satisfied with the quality of DSP-processed audio, such as
Audyssey processsed, as compared with analog signals processed in an
"analog-bypass" mode? In my own experience, for example, so far
Audyssey-processed, multi-channel SACD signals seem to be "smoother,"
and multi-channel signals more balanced, but I seem to loose some of the
high frequencies and some bass compared with an analog-bypass mode. - In
effect, the signal seems to be somewhat "veiled."


Well, you do lose the modal bumps in the bass and, depending on the
version and settings for your particular Audyssey, there is an
intentional HF roll-off in the default Audyssey curve.

Kal


I have the NAD 175, which as you know has several Audyssey response
curve options. With each of them, high frequencies such as those from
cymbals and other such instruments are often missing. - It could be my
hearing, or my settings, room acoustics, the recording, or something
else (my bad). But if that were the case, why do they reappear, in
balance with the rest of the orchestra, when I switch to analog bypass?


First, do you know what the FR actually is before and after the
Audyssey correction? Often, users have adapted to the peaky FR that
they have had for years and find the corrected FR lacking. This
requires re-adaptation on the part of the listener.

Second, listeners can actually prefer a non-corrected response,
despite its irregularity, and such personal preferences are at the
heart of so-called "house curves."

Third, as I stated before, Audyssey usually implements a correction
curve that includes elimination of peaky bass and a gentle treble
roll-off. In addition, the "Athena" curve of the NAD correction has a
midbass bump to compensate for the loss of "room gain." I have no
personal experience with it but all of that can account for what you
are perceiving.

So, have you done any independent measurements to confirm that what
you perceive is what is happening?

Kal

Jim

Nope. I haven't done independent measurements. (Did you really think
there was a reasonable chance that I had, or were you just trying to
make a point?) - Actually, that's why I posted my question. - To get the
opinions of a variety of audiophiles who have tried Audyssey and/or
other DSP processing.


I'm wondering. - What speakers are you using for your own evaluations?
Are they the Maggie 1.6 speakers that you have used in the past?

Kal's point may be what without before/after measurements,
subjective reports of the effect aren't particularly interpretable or
indicative of anything.

[Steven Sullivan]

JimCate wrote:
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 22 Feb 2009 00:24:26 GMT, JimCate wrote:


Kalman Rubinson wrote:


On 21 Feb 2009 21:38:14 GMT, JimCate wrote:



I'm interested in the reactions of other audiophiles who have ventured
into digital signal processing systems, such as Audyssey. Are you
generally satisfied with the quality of DSP-processed audio, such as
Audyssey processsed, as compared with analog signals processed in an
"analog-bypass" mode? In my own experience, for example, so far
Audyssey-processed, multi-channel SACD signals seem to be "smoother,"
and multi-channel signals more balanced, but I seem to loose some of the
high frequencies and some bass compared with an analog-bypass mode. - In
effect, the signal seems to be somewhat "veiled."


Well, you do lose the modal bumps in the bass and, depending on the
version and settings for your particular Audyssey, there is an
intentional HF roll-off in the default Audyssey curve.

Kal


I have the NAD 175, which as you know has several Audyssey response
curve options. With each of them, high frequencies such as those from
cymbals and other such instruments are often missing. - It could be my
hearing, or my settings, room acoustics, the recording, or something
else (my bad). But if that were the case, why do they reappear, in
balance with the rest of the orchestra, when I switch to analog bypass?


First, do you know what the FR actually is before and after the
Audyssey correction? Often, users have adapted to the peaky FR that
they have had for years and find the corrected FR lacking. This
requires re-adaptation on the part of the listener.

Second, listeners can actually prefer a non-corrected response,
despite its irregularity, and such personal preferences are at the
heart of so-called "house curves."

Third, as I stated before, Audyssey usually implements a correction
curve that includes elimination of peaky bass and a gentle treble
roll-off. In addition, the "Athena" curve of the NAD correction has a
midbass bump to compensate for the loss of "room gain." I have no
personal experience with it but all of that can account for what you
are perceiving.

So, have you done any independent measurements to confirm that what
you perceive is what is happening?

Kal

Jim

Nope. I haven't done independent measurements. (Did you really think
there was a reasonable chance that I had, or were you just trying to
make a point?) - Actually, that's why I posted my question. - To get the
opinions of a variety of audiophiles who have tried Audyssey and/or
other DSP processing.

I'm wondering. - What speakers are you using for your own evaluations?
Are they the Maggie 1.6 speakers that you have used in the past?

Kal's point may be what without before/after measurements,
subjective reports of the effect aren't particularly interpretable or
indicative of anything.

[Kalman Rubinson[_3_]]

On 23 Feb 2009 15:33:42 GMT, Steve
wrote:

I have a related question - does anybody have experience of some of
the cheaper DSP options for us lesser mortals who don't want to shell
out for the high end stuff. Two solutions from the pro audio world
that interest me (I have no experience but am thinking of trying one
for a stereo system) are;

1) Behringer DEQ2496 still available and reviewed here;

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...acurve2496.htm

2) KRK ERGO described here - the interesting twist here is that is
uses Lyndorf room correction system;

http://www.krksys.com/ergo/intro.php
http://www.krksys.com/ergo/technology-room-perfect.php

If you are content with bass-only correction, consider the
Anti-Mode 8033.
http://www.stereophile.com/hirezplay...34/index1.html

Kal

[Steven Sullivan]

Steve wrote:
I have a related question - does anybody have experience of some of
the cheaper DSP options for us lesser mortals who don't want to shell
out for the high end stuff. Two solutions from the pro audio world
that interest me (I have no experience but am thinking of trying one
for a stereo system) are;

1) Behringer DEQ2496 still available and reviewed here;

Favored by many who use the free Room EQ Wizard room measurment software.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=529224

[Kalman Rubinson[_3_]]

On 23 Feb 2009 17:43:48 GMT, Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Kal's point may be what without before/after measurements,
subjective reports of the effect aren't particularly interpretable or
indicative of anything.

Exactly. First time experiences of having one's own
room/system corrected vary widely and wildly.

Kal

[JimCate]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
JimCate wrote:

Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On 22 Feb 2009 00:24:26 GMT, JimCate wrote:



Kalman Rubinson wrote:



On 21 Feb 2009 21:38:14 GMT, JimCate wrote:




I'm interested in the reactions of other audiophiles who have ventured
into digital signal processing systems, such as Audyssey. Are you
generally satisfied with the quality of DSP-processed audio, such as
Audyssey processsed, as compared with analog signals processed in an
"analog-bypass" mode? In my own experience, for example, so far
Audyssey-processed, multi-channel SACD signals seem to be "smoother,"
and multi-channel signals more balanced, but I seem to loose some of the
high frequencies and some bass compared with an analog-bypass mode. - In
effect, the signal seems to be somewhat "veiled."


Well, you do lose the modal bumps in the bass and, depending on the
version and settings for your particular Audyssey, there is an
intentional HF roll-off in the default Audyssey curve.

Kal


I have the NAD 175, which as you know has several Audyssey response
curve options. With each of them, high frequencies such as those from
cymbals and other such instruments are often missing. - It could be my
hearing, or my settings, room acoustics, the recording, or something
else (my bad). But if that were the case, why do they reappear, in
balance with the rest of the orchestra, when I switch to analog bypass?


First, do you know what the FR actually is before and after the
Audyssey correction? Often, users have adapted to the peaky FR that
they have had for years and find the corrected FR lacking. This
requires re-adaptation on the part of the listener.

Second, listeners can actually prefer a non-corrected response,
despite its irregularity, and such personal preferences are at the
heart of so-called "house curves."

Third, as I stated before, Audyssey usually implements a correction
curve that includes elimination of peaky bass and a gentle treble
roll-off. In addition, the "Athena" curve of the NAD correction has a
midbass bump to compensate for the loss of "room gain." I have no
personal experience with it but all of that can account for what you
are perceiving.

So, have you done any independent measurements to confirm that what
you perceive is what is happening?

Kal


Jim


Nope. I haven't done independent measurements. (Did you really think
there was a reasonable chance that I had, or were you just trying to
make a point?) - Actually, that's why I posted my question. - To get the
opinions of a variety of audiophiles who have tried Audyssey and/or
other DSP processing.



I'm wondering. - What speakers are you using for your own evaluations?
Are they the Maggie 1.6 speakers that you have used in the past?


Kal's point may be what without before/after measurements,
subjective reports of the effect aren't particularly interpretable or
indicative of anything.

I'm aware that accurate measurements throughout the frequency spectrum,
before and after setting up and using the Audyssey system, would be
useful. I'm also aware that a common response to anyone who questions
the results of such processing is that the listener had simply become
used to the distortion in his system and didn't recognize that the
processing had substantially removed the distortion. - Or, that he
didn't run the setup routine properly. - But my thought was that if the
opinions of a majority of audiophiles who have tried DSP were the same
as mine, that would also be of some relevance, which is why I posted
the original note.

Don't forget John Atkinson's approach to determining whether he liked
and would continue to use a particular (analog) amp vs. a digital one
that was preferred in a DB test. - He ultimately relied on his own
listening experience over several months, thereby demonstrating that DBT
and other testing was of little value, since no measurements were
involved AFAIK. (This last statement, of course, is an attempt at satire
rather than logic and isn't intended to be taken seriously.) Still, I
have made some some rather significant (for me) investments in new
procesing equipment over the past few months, and so far I generally
haven't been satisfied with DSP processing for most serious listening.
However, since the issue doesn't seem to be of much interest on this ng,
I'll move over to AVS.

Jim

[Kalman Rubinson[_3_]]

On 24 Feb 2009 02:45:56 GMT, JimCate wrote:

I'm aware that accurate measurements throughout the frequency spectrum,
before and after setting up and using the Audyssey system, would be
useful. I'm also aware that a common response to anyone who questions
the results of such processing is that the listener had simply become
used to the distortion in his system and didn't recognize that the
processing had substantially removed the distortion. - Or, that he
didn't run the setup routine properly. - But my thought was that if the
opinions of a majority of audiophiles who have tried DSP were the same
as mine, that would also be of some relevance, which is why I posted
the original note.

That's a good point but anecdotal reports are still anecdotal, even if
there are many. No one really has to accept anything that they do not
like or find satisfying. OTOH, the adaptation issue is real. For
those who do not like the results of room correction (assuming it was
done successfully), my advice is to live with it, without any A/B
switching, for a week or two. Then, switch it off and decide for
yourself.

Don't forget John Atkinson's approach to determining whether he liked
and would continue to use a particular (analog) amp vs. a digital one
that was preferred in a DB test. - He ultimately relied on his own
listening experience over several months, thereby demonstrating that DBT
and other testing was of little value, since no measurements were
involved AFAIK. (This last statement, of course, is an attempt at satire
rather than logic and isn't intended to be taken seriously.) Still, I
have made some some rather significant (for me) investments in new
procesing equipment over the past few months, and so far I generally
haven't been satisfied with DSP processing for most serious listening.

If you have given it a fair shot, I have no problem with that. I know
many people whose "taste" in sound is poles apart from mine. So what?

Kal

[[email protected]]

On Feb 23, 9:45*pm, JimCate wrote:

But my thought was that if the
opinions of a majority of audiophiles who have tried DSP were the same
as mine, that would also be of some relevance, which is *why I posted
the original note.

This assumes that those audiophiles all came to their opinions
independently. If, however:

1) many such audiophiles are merely repeating what they have heard/
read elsewhere (for no other reason than to be helpful), and

2) many such audiophiles' personal experiences are influenced by
things they have read...

then "a majority of audiophiles" really means "a few audiophiles." Not
nearly so relevant.

This is not to denigrate any individual's observations, including
yours. But caveat lector.

bob