Loudness Management (Fletcher-munson?) - Dolby vs Audyssey Dynamic EQ in current generation AVR's

[FrantzM]

Hi

Audyssey is probably run by a bunch of technophiles/technicians aka "nerds" with little understanding of marketing. Audyssey is far better than most people realize. The jury is out, on which is better, Audyssey or Dirac. The knee-jerk reaction is that Dirac "ought" to be better but there hasn't been any conclusive, read, objective, tests to ascertain this. Dynamic EQ is a needed feature, and it works well. Not much effort. You turn it on, it works. Period.
Since we are advancing anecdotes and subjective opinions: I, haven't noticed any particular increase in the surround channels level .. or if there has been , it hasn't bothered me. The reality of the situation is that the Fletcher-Munson curves are not an abstraction, these curves are a very good approximation, of the way most people hearing apparatus works: A system that is calibrated for an average level, let's call it "Reference" for the lack of a more proper term, shall not sound the same or equally well at all level of loudness, especially those below that "reference" level. THe system response must be compensated. So far the best compensation feature, in my book, is that of the Denon/Marantz and other Audyssey-driven AVRs. I find it strange that most other DRC don't have it. It is nil-impossible to always listen at "Reference".. Life constantly requires that you turn the volume up or down and .. there goes your so carefully reference corrections... to your ears... IT has become to me an essential feature. At this point in time I don't see myself moving away from Audyssey unless other DRC provide a similar feature. Not even Trinnov or Storm with all their features would tempt me, The HT-1 if it works without any glitch (not what I tend to think from many reports) would be the Pre/Pro I would consider simply because it has a similar feature... I'll cross this bridge when (and if) I come to it .. For now , Audyssey...

Peace.

 

[truwarrior22]

Hi

Audyssey is probably run by a bunch of technophiles/technicians aka "nerds" with little understanding of marketing. Audyssey is far better than most people realize. The jury is out, on which is better, Audyssey or Dirac. The knee-jerk reaction is that Dirac "ought" to be better but there hasn't been any conclusive, read, objective, tests to ascertain this. Dynamic EQ is a needed feature, and it works well. Not much effort. You turn it on, it works. Period.
Since we are advancing anecdotes and subjective opinions: I, haven't noticed any particular increase in the surround channels level .. or if there has been , it hasn't bothered me. The reality of the situation is that the Fletcher-Munson curves are not an abstraction, these curves are a very good approximation, of the way most people hearing apparatus works: A system that is calibrated for an average level, let's call it "Reference" for the lack of a more proper term, shall not sound the same or equally well at all level of loudness, especially those below that "reference" level. THe system response must be compensated. So far the best compensation feature, in my book, is that of the Denon/Marantz and other Audyssey-driven AVRs. I find it strange that most other DRC don't have it. It is nil-impossible to always listen at "Reference".. Life constantly requires that you turn the volume up or down and .. there goes your so carefully reference corrections... to your ears... IT has become to me an essential feature. At this point in time I don't see myself moving away from Audyssey unless other DRC provide a similar feature. Not even Trinnov or Storm with all their features would tempt me, The HT-1 if it works without any glitch (not what I tend to think from many reports) would be the Pre/Pro I would consider simply because it has a similar feature... I'll cross this bridge when (and if) I come to it .. For now , Audyssey...

Peace.

Could it be possible some device uses a form of compression all the time whereas it needs to be enabled with Audyssey? I just find it odd if some switch from Denon to say an Acram and say how much “better” it sounds.

 

[dlaloum]

Could it be possible some device uses a form of compression all the time whereas it needs to be enabled with Audyssey? I just find it odd if some switch from Denon to say an Acram and say how much “better” it sounds.

No so odd - the default RoomEQ settings have differing target curves - therefore the voicing will inherently be different.

A proper comparison would need to have identical EQ / Frequency Response settings as a starting point! (I specify frequency response, as the target curves would need to be adjusted for the same measurable output - rather than merely the same target.

 

[jhaider]

I don’t know about THX, but Dolby does not have something similar to Audyssey Dynamic EQ. What Dolby has in a Denon receiver is a compressor and dialog normalization that only works with Dolby codecs.

Dolby does, at least for surround (oddly they disable it on immersive native or upmixed content). It's called the Volume Modeling part of Dolby Volume. I don't know that Denon ever offered it, though others (e.g. Anthem) have.

https://professional.dolby.com/siteassets/pdfs/dolby-volume-tech-paper.pdf

FWIW I definitely preferred listening through Dolby Volume Modeling (without the "Leveler" compressor part - I've never had any interest in adding dynamic compression to recorded music so have never used those tools) over DynamicEQ, but it wasn't a fair fight. The issue was I compared them before the Audyssey iOS app. So the comparison was biased by Dolby Volume being used on top of nice target curve dialed in with Anthem ARC, and DynamicEQ being used over Audyssey's "Reference" target curve, about which I've written enough.

 

[truwarrior22]

No so odd - the default RoomEQ settings have differing target curves - therefore the voicing will inherently be different.

A proper comparison would need to have identical EQ / Frequency Response settings as a starting point! (I specify frequency response, as the target curves would need to be adjusted for the same measurable output - rather than merely the same target.

Surprised manufactures wouldn’t do this, technically it would sound louder and and more “detailed” since the softer sounds would be lifted some. Not sure if there’s a measurement for compressions. Would that be consider a forum of distortion?

 

[dlaloum]

Surprised manufactures wouldn’t do this, technically it would sound louder and and more “detailed” since the softer sounds would be lifted some. Not sure if there’s a measurement for compressions. Would that be consider a forum of distortion?

Yes compression is considered a form of distortion... if we are talking High Fidelity reproduction.....

On the other hand, it has been used a lot in mastering.... so why not in reproduction?

 

[Soundmixer]

What Dolby has in a Denon receiver is a compressor and dialog normalization that only works with Dolby codecs.

Dialog Norm is history. It died when the lossless codecs came into play.

 

[tjcinnamon]

Hi

Audyssey is probably run by a bunch of technophiles/technicians aka "nerds" with little understanding of marketing. Audyssey is far better than most people realize. The jury is out, on which is better, Audyssey or Dirac. The knee-jerk reaction is that Dirac "ought" to be better but there hasn't been any conclusive, read, objective, tests to ascertain this. Dynamic EQ is a needed feature, and it works well. Not much effort. You turn it on, it works. Period.
Since we are advancing anecdotes and subjective opinions: I, haven't noticed any particular increase in the surround channels level .. or if there has been , it hasn't bothered me. The reality of the situation is that the Fletcher-Munson curves are not an abstraction, these curves are a very good approximation, of the way most people hearing apparatus works: A system that is calibrated for an average level, let's call it "Reference" for the lack of a more proper term, shall not sound the same or equally well at all level of loudness, especially those below that "reference" level. THe system response must be compensated. So far the best compensation feature, in my book, is that of the Denon/Marantz and other Audyssey-driven AVRs. I find it strange that most other DRC don't have it. It is nil-impossible to always listen at "Reference".. Life constantly requires that you turn the volume up or down and .. there goes your so carefully reference corrections... to your ears... IT has become to me an essential feature. At this point in time I don't see myself moving away from Audyssey unless other DRC provide a similar feature. Not even Trinnov or Storm with all their features would tempt me, The HT-1 if it works without any glitch (not what I tend to think from many reports) would be the Pre/Pro I would consider simply because it has a similar feature... I'll cross this bridge when (and if) I come to it .. For now , Audyssey...

Peace.

I’m in the exact same situation. I just came back to Audyssey from Dirac and I really like Audyssey better. The surrounds blend with the mains much better

 

[Vacceo]

Hi

Audyssey is probably run by a bunch of technophiles/technicians aka "nerds" with little understanding of marketing. Audyssey is far better than most people realize. The jury is out, on which is better, Audyssey or Dirac. The knee-jerk reaction is that Dirac "ought" to be better but there hasn't been any conclusive, read, objective, tests to ascertain this. Dynamic EQ is a needed feature, and it works well. Not much effort. You turn it on, it works. Period.
Since we are advancing anecdotes and subjective opinions: I, haven't noticed any particular increase in the surround channels level .. or if there has been , it hasn't bothered me. The reality of the situation is that the Fletcher-Munson curves are not an abstraction, these curves are a very good approximation, of the way most people hearing apparatus works: A system that is calibrated for an average level, let's call it "Reference" for the lack of a more proper term, shall not sound the same or equally well at all level of loudness, especially those below that "reference" level. THe system response must be compensated. So far the best compensation feature, in my book, is that of the Denon/Marantz and other Audyssey-driven AVRs. I find it strange that most other DRC don't have it. It is nil-impossible to always listen at "Reference".. Life constantly requires that you turn the volume up or down and .. there goes your so carefully reference corrections... to your ears... IT has become to me an essential feature. At this point in time I don't see myself moving away from Audyssey unless other DRC provide a similar feature. Not even Trinnov or Storm with all their features would tempt me, The HT-1 if it works without any glitch (not what I tend to think from many reports) would be the Pre/Pro I would consider simply because it has a similar feature... I'll cross this bridge when (and if) I come to it .. For now , Audyssey...

Peace.

Perhaps when Dirac releases their "ablative" (as in armor) approach to room correction, that could be the element that sways you. My guess is that the current superior element in Dirac is the capacity to better (or perhaps slightly better) adjusts subwoofers and the lowest end of frequencies in general.

Still, with Audyssey Multeq X, that could change at any moment as they could expand the current software to archive a similar funcionality to Dirac. When the software was released, the creators commented that they could include extra functions over time...

 

[tjcinnamon]

Perhaps when Dirac releases their "ablative" (as in armor) approach to room correction, that could be the element that sways you. My guess is that the current superior element in Dirac is the capacity to better (or perhaps slightly better) adjusts subwoofers and the lowest end of frequencies in general.

Still, with Audyssey Multeq X, that could change at any moment as they could expand the current software to archive a similar funcionality to Dirac. When the software was released, the creators commented that they could include extra functions over time...

Fingers crossed Audyssey can continue to make enhancements. Competition is always a good thing. They rested on their laurels and are now lagging dangerously behind.

DEQ is a game changer.

 

[dlaloum]

Perhaps when Dirac releases their "ablative" (as in armor) approach to room correction, that could be the element that sways you. My guess is that the current superior element in Dirac is the capacity to better (or perhaps slightly better) adjusts subwoofers and the lowest end of frequencies in general.

Still, with Audyssey Multeq X, that could change at any moment as they could expand the current software to archive a similar funcionality to Dirac. When the software was released, the creators commented that they could include extra functions over time...

The trouble with Audyssey... is that once they sold the perpetual exclusive licence to D&M - Audyssey themselves then have little or no incentive to further invest in development - hence it has been "withering on the vine".

Unless D&M therefore get directly involved in funding further research, and then development - it isn't really going to go anywhere.

The features /capabilities of Audyssey have not shifted in 10 years (since D&M purchased it) - all that they have done is make features that were previously in the multeq "pro" kit - available to the mainstream.... via the Multeq-X software.
Have they included ALL the features that were in the old pro kit software? I have no idea, perhaps someone who has used the pro kit in the past could compare? (anything missing will presumably get added over time)

 

[JoachimStrobel]

My approach is, to combine the „room curve“ and the loudness correction. All published and in use room curves seem to be made for 75-85 db and hence have a sloping bass boost of around 3db below 500 hz. Eyeballing FH or ISO or whatever source one finds, one can now create a new room curve for 50 db levels. That yields roughly 6-10 db plus for the bass. I then have two Dirac settings, one for loud and one for not so loud. The level of bass one likes for low listening volumes varies by taste. Background with a lot of bass is hardly background anymore. The tricky part is the high frequency region above 8khz. Published loudness curves differ there a lot and age plays a role too.

 

[Vacceo]

The trouble with Audyssey... is that once they sold the perpetual exclusive licence to D&M - Audyssey themselves then have little or no incentive to further invest in development - hence it has been "withering on the vine".

Unless D&M therefore get directly involved in funding further research, and then development - it isn't really going to go anywhere.

The features /capabilities of Audyssey have not shifted in 10 years (since D&M purchased it) - all that they have done is make features that were previously in the multeq "pro" kit - available to the mainstream.... via the Multeq-X software.
Have they included ALL the features that were in the old pro kit software? I have no idea, perhaps someone who has used the pro kit in the past could compare? (anything missing will presumably get added over time)

How comes McIntosh also uses Audyssey? Their processors are Sound United-made?

The last batch was released a couple years ago, and top tier uses Lyngdorf, but It sounds like moving to Dirac may sound more interesting due to their external nature.

 

[dlaloum]

How comes McIntosh also uses Audyssey? Their processors are Sound United-made?

The last batch was released a couple years ago, and top tier uses Lyngdorf, but It sounds like moving to Dirac may sound more interesting due to their external nature.

D&M Holdings used to own McIntosh (I believe there was substantial internal shared "guts" around 2010 to 2012) - it was sold in 2012.

Presumably, as part of the sale of McIntosh, they included ongoing licencing for Audyssey... as they are still including Audyssey now!

(it may also have included other sharing arrangements on an ongoing basis - wonder how much of the guts of current McIntosh AV processors, share parts with D&M processors / AVR's?)

 

[Vacceo]

D&M Holdings used to own McIntosh (I believe there was substantial internal shared "guts" around 2010 to 2012) - it was sold in 2012.

Presumably, as part of the sale of McIntosh, they included ongoing licencing for Audyssey... as they are still including Audyssey now!

(it may also have included other sharing arrangements on an ongoing basis - wonder how much of the guts of current McIntosh AV processors, share parts with D&M processors / AVR's?)

There was an ongoing comment on avsforums and other sites that the mx100 from Mc is a stripped down Marantz processor.

I honestly don't give it much credit, as there are just so many ways to create a processor, hence, they are probably quite similar to each other.

 

[dlaloum]

There was an ongoing comment on avsforums and other sites that the mx100 from Mc is a stripped down Marantz processor.

I honestly don't give it much credit, as there are just so many ways to create a processor, hence, they are probably quite similar to each other.

Why not?

McIntosh have expertise with amps, but software expertise? DSP's?

An off the shelf TOTL HDMI board, with a matching DSP board - both from Marantz - and you then have 99% of what is needed...

You add a multichannel DAC board (could be custom, could be from Marantz stable) - and if it's an AVR, add some power amps - which is McIntosh's core field of expertise.

The Remotes were identical to the Marantz ones too...

It would certainly not be identical - but sharing some major parts makes sense!

 

[Vacceo]

McIntosh does not make AVR's. They say that they consider it a waste as you'd change the processing part and take out perfectly functional amps. To me it sounds like spinning the fact that a processor may be more worthy to them as that would not conflict with their core product: amplifiers.

At any rate, if the remote is similar, both use Audyssey and probably the performance in signal terms is not too different, chances are the next iterations may allow both Audyssey and Dirac.

Honestly, they could strive to get a bit further transparency...

 

[DaveBoswell]

I have been recently re-experimenting with using Dolby Volume on my Anthem Pre/Pro. I really did not like the dynamic range compression and stopped using it years ago, but found out relatively recently that you can have the dynamic EQ part active without the dynamic range compression - let's just say the manual and UI where less than fully intuitive . I really quite like it and have now removed/reduced my house curve as this dynamically adjusts the house curve quite nicely as you adjust the volume.

Took some measurements in REW to see what it is doing:

Below is absolute SPL for 5 volume levels from -20db (about the loudest I ever watch movies at) to -40db, a more comfortable casual listening level and more like what I use late night as I am in an open concept basement rec room open to the house. I found I had to reduce the forced room curve boost in bass of around 6db (that is included in the charts as the bass became overwhelming).

...and here is a view of the same charts normalized to lay on top of each other to see easier what they are doing. As expected the bass is boosted and the treble mildly dropped as you lower the volume to compensate for your natural hearing curves. Interesting little blip in the 2k to 3k range as well.

 

[snickers]

Hey DaveBoswell

Which Anthem and which Speaker config are you using? I'm just wondering if Dolby Volume is only working "until" 7.1 or also for 3D speaker config's.
BTW: I have the Dolby Volume function also in my Harman AVR 7550D and love it. It's always on. I'm using it on the setting "low" which means that only the dynamic EQ part is working and the dynamic range compression is deactivated.

That was my main issue with the Dirac-based Lexion RV-6, which didn't had anything similar running together with Dirac.

 

[DaveBoswell]

@snickers it's an Anthem AVM50v and I typically run in 5.1 - no spots for my rear speakers anymore after I moved a few years ago. Not sure what the newer ones do and have scanned through their manuals but have not found anything definitive. This feature is on my list for next upgrade for sure as it really works nicely in my new home as it has an open basement (not quite sure what I was thinking when I designed it that way! LOL)