 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.58.46.36
In Reply to: RE: Analog or HDMI for HD Master audio posted by vinylvin on April 13, 2009 at 06:36:23
If you want to do a manual set-up and hear it the way you want to hear it, analog is the way to do it. If you trust a very basic microphone (which doesn't have the shell-shaped sonic passages labyrinth of your ears) to have the same hearing as you and you want to hear it the way a processor thinks you should hear it, go with HDMI.
Follow Ups:
If the microphone mimicked the shape of the external ear and canal, it would give you faulty measurements since it would provide a compensation for the system that does not exist with all live sounds. Thus, it would assure you of unrealistic reproduction, just the opposite of what is desired.
Now, I have no objection to anyone shaping the sound to suit his or her tastes but to distinguish between these two types of setups as you have is simply wrong, both logically and practically.
Kal
The point I'm making is the mic doesn't pick-up the sound the same way the ear does. Therefore it has significant limitations as a means to getting the best sound from your system. It's a convenience for those who aren't confident with their ability to tackle the manual set-up or for those who can't be bothered.
I've installed numerous receivers with auto set-up and whenever I've done the comparison (many times), the manual set-up has always yielded superior sonic results. It's simple why this is the case, the users ear knows what it likes, the mic is not the user's ear, and the processor's auto-mode doesn't know what the user likes to hear.
"The point I'm making is the mic doesn't pick-up the sound the same way the ear does. " Yes and properly so. If you do not appreciate that an objective measurement is necessary then you have little understanding of the logic or technology involved. There are valid scientific reasons for this and for why your silly/casual suggestion of having the mic mimic the ear or, indeed, the HRTF of the listener is wrong.
Now, as I said, if you or your clients prefer some other sound, you are certainly entitled to "flavor to taste."
Kal
As it is with an audio system. What Audyssey et al have come up with is a great marketing tool and clever feature which many find appealing. But to believe it is the only way to tailor your system for the best sound is to follow the lemmings off the cliff face.
I've tried many of the auto set-ups included on modern day receivers and they are a decent way to get up and running. For those who like a sound other than what auto set-ups do, there's a really good alternative. It's very simple. Let your ears decide. To many I've spoken with, manual set-up yields greater reward.
In rooms where the speakers have first say with placement over furnishings, by-passing the receiver's processor completely can also result in better sound via the Blu-ray players analog outs (providing it has the necessary decoders built-in of course).
It's a lot easier to understand once you've experienced it.
As it stands, you are either a particularly interested party in the auto set-up industry or you are Audyssey's wet dream.
You know, with some implementations of Audyssey (and not just the Pro version like Kal has), you can copy its findings, then adjust to taste. Not just the XOs and average level for each speaker, but the individual freq response of each speaker within at least a dozen freq bands. It may not be all you'd like, but it is fairly flexible, and not so "robotic"...Audyssey just gives you the starting point, and it does seem to do a fair job of that.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
