# Feature request: Equalizer profile for Yamaha receivers



## BeNooL (Mar 9, 2008)

I have a RXV-3800 and have been using REW to optimize my correction curves but as the hardware only allows for certain frequencies and Q settings the generic profile needs a lot of manual tweaking.

Do you think it would be possible to add a new equalizer profile for Yamaha receivers that support PEQ like the RXV range of receivers.


The Parametric EQ features and limitations are as follows.

Filters:

7 filters for normal channels, only 2 filters may use frequencies below 198 Hz
2 filters for subwoofer, only frequencies between 31.3 Hz to 250Hz
Frequency: (selectable from)

31.3 Hz
39.4 Hz
49.6 Hz
62.5 Hz
78.7 Hz
99.2 Hz
125 Hz
157.5 Hz
198.4 Hz
250 Hz
315 Hz
396.9 Hz
500 Hz
630 Hz
793.7 Hz
1.0 kHz
1.26 kHz
1.59 kHz
2.0 kHz
2.52 kHz
3.17 kHz
4.0 kHz
5.04 kHz
6.35 kHz
8.0 kHz
10.1 kHz
12.7 kHz
16.0 kHz

Gain: (0.5 increments)
-20 to +6 dB

Q: (selectable from)

0.5
0.630
0.794
1.0
1.260
1.587
2.0
2.520
3.175
4.0
5.040
6.350
8.0
10.080

Thanks for a great software as it :clap:


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

For equalizers not supported by REW, using the RTA feature is always an option. :T

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## JohnM (Apr 11, 2006)

It would be difficult to accommodate the special conditions (like only 2 filters below 198Hz) with the current equaliser structure, and the optimiser would really struggle with such large frequency and Q steps. I'll add it to the list of things to look at, but it won't be any time soon, I'm afraid.


----------



## nathan_h (Feb 19, 2009)

JohnM said:


> It would be difficult to accommodate the special conditions (like only 2 filters below 198Hz) with the current equaliser structure, and the optimiser would really struggle with such large frequency and Q steps. I'll add it to the list of things to look at, but it won't be any time soon, I'm afraid.


Just checking in to see if this is still on the roadmap. My first choice was an Emotiva but after weeks of handshake issues and two units in the house, I'm moving on and the Yamaha is about the only thing under a grand with PEQ.


----------



## nathan_h (Feb 19, 2009)

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> For equalizers not supported by REW, using the RTA feature is always an option. :T
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


Is that done by playing back pink noise and in real time looking at the RTA and finding peaks and dialing them down via the PEQ?


----------



## sveinse (Apr 4, 2008)

I would surely have loved this feature, since I'm a Yamaha user as well. But I agree, that matching a response with the frequency and Q granularity the Yamaha offers makes it difficult indeed.

I have to wonder why Yamaha have made this limitation. I mean, the digital filters running in the DSP, does not have such granularity, since being a mathematical operation. Hence this limitation is made purely from other reasons. Marketing, customer friendlyness perhaps, and unfortunately limiting.


----------



## nathan_h (Feb 19, 2009)

sveinse said:


> I would surely have loved this feature, since I'm a Yamaha user as well. But I agree, that matching a response with the frequency and Q granularity the Yamaha offers makes it difficult indeed.
> 
> I have to wonder why Yamaha have made this limitation. I mean, the digital filters running in the DSP, does not have such granularity, since being a mathematical operation. Hence this limitation is made purely from other reasons. Marketing, customer friendlyness perhaps, and unfortunately limiting.


I have to wonder about it, as well. It's a big gap since the only alternative in the 1k space is the Emotiva, which I tried but had too many handshake issues for me.

I guess it sort of helps in the sense that 1/3 RTA apps are free and easy for mobile devices these days, so if one was intimidate by REW, one would still have an option.... but that seems like a bad reason for the limitation. And it's not marketing, I don't think, because then the higher end units would have resolved this, but they don't: Yamaha has the same limitation all the way up the line.



BeNooL said:


> Filters:
> 
> 7 filters for normal channels, only 2 filters may use frequencies below 198 Hz
> 2 filters for subwoofer, only frequencies between 31.3 Hz to 250Hz
> ...


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

nathan_h said:


> Is that done by playing back pink noise and in real time looking at the RTA and finding peaks and dialing them down via the PEQ?


Yup. And REW has a pink noise generator. Can’t do much in the way of boosting troughs though; I’m sure Yamaha limited filter gain to keep idiots from burning out their tweeters.

You do realize that you will need a mic with a custom calibration file, right? You certainly don’t want to do any main-channel equalizing based on an inaccurate measurement, which is what you’ll have with a generic calibration file or something from a cell phone.




sveinse said:


> I would surely have loved this feature, since I'm a Yamaha user as well. But I agree, that matching a response with the frequency and Q granularity the Yamaha offers makes it difficult indeed.


Have you tried it? I have an older RX-V2500 with the same equalizer capabilities in my bedroom system, and had great success EQing my main channel speakers. Basically what you have is a 1/3-octave parametric equalizer for each channel. That’s actually pretty potent stuff. 

Regarding “Q granularity,” let’s take a closer look at that:

2.0Q – a bit less than 3/4 octave (.71)
2.52Q – a bit more than 1/2 octave (.57)
3.175Q – a bit less than 1/2 octave (.45)
4.0Q – a bit more than 1/3 octave (.36)
5.04Q – a bit less than 1/3 octave (.28)
6.35Q – a bit less than 1/4 octave .23)

So you can see that the bandwidth settings are close enough to accomplish any smoothing of main-channel response you’d want to do. For the main channels you don’t need the kind of ultra-precise equalization that you need for subwoofers.

My only beef with the RX-V2500 EQ was that it was clumsy to navigate (maybe they’ve made some progress on that front) and the 1/3-octave frequency resolution. If Yamaha ever bumps it up to 1/6-octave I’ll seriously consider giving up my outboard EQs. :T

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## sveinse (Apr 4, 2008)

Yes, I do agree. I'm using the built-in Yamaha PEQ to do some corrections in my HT setup, so yes, it does indeed work. And I am much, much more happy with the Yamaha than any other receiver brands because of the PEQ.

I find the web-based technical interface on http : // <receiver-ip /Setup/ to be easier to use to setup the PEQ, than using the remote control.

Where I find its shortcomings (but not totally lost) is:


Firstly, if you need to compensate a certain frequency and it doesn't perfectly match the available frequencies, you will have to select the closest and perhaps select a wider Q to be able affect the wanted frequency sufficiently. This is not always without side effects, like too broad compensation.
Secondly, if you need a high-Q compensation, you might not be able to select the frequency at all. I.e. the higher Q you use, the better frequency precision you need.

As a sidenote, the PEQ on the professional line of Yamaha products, like their live mixer consoles is great! It does not have any limitation on selectable frequencies and Q-values. So I do believe this is a conscious choice by Yamaha not to have too many selectable frequencies and Q-values in the receivers. I would be a real happy camper if they had used the professional PEQ in the Yamaha receiver line of products! Computational wise its no different, it is just about more or less the same filter.


----------



## nathan_h (Feb 19, 2009)

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Yup. And REW has a pink noise generator. Can’t do much in the way of boosting troughs though; I’m sure Yamaha limited filter gain to keep idiots from burning out their tweeters.
> 
> You do realize that you will need a mic with a custom calibration file, right? You certainly don’t want to do any main-channel equalizing based on an inaccurate measurement, which is what you’ll have with a generic calibration file or something from a cell phone.


I have a calibrated mic from Dayton, EMM-6, with a file just for the particular mic.

Back in the day, these excellent calibrated USB mics weren't nearly as affordable, but that would be preferable now. I may upgrade to one, since it's cumbersome and gives me grief, hooking up a massive USB pre-amp console to my Mac Air just to make use of this phantom power needing mic I have right now.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

sveinse said:


> *Secondly, if you need a high-Q compensation, you might not be able to select the frequency at all. I.e. the higher Q you use, the better frequency precision you need.


True, but it's kind of a moot point: Notch filters aren’t useful (or appropriate) for equalizing hi-fi speakers.

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## sveinse (Apr 4, 2008)

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> True, but it's kind of a moot point: Notch filters aren’t useful (or appropriate) for equalizing hi-fi speakers.
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


Yes, generally I do agree. But sometimes they are needed, even on HiFi. One could argue that high Q noches is not for HiFi, but I've seen a few cases where they have their usage.

Take a look at this plot taken for a B&W DM603 S3 speaker. It had a rather pesky mid centered around 320 Hz which sounded pretty intense. I had to use 315Hz, -3dB with a Q as much as 10.8 without affecting too much around.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

Curious, I can’t imagine why it would have taken a filter that tight for a peak that’s nearly a full octave wide. Since typically a filter designated as half the bandwidth of a peak is required to address it, so a filter a bit less than a half-octave should have been adequate for a mere 3 dB adjustment. Even allowing for “overspread,” a filter in the 4-6Q range at worse (1/3-1/4-octave) should have been more than adequate.

But then, different equalizers “calculate” bandwidth differently, as seen in the graphs at this post.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## sveinse (Apr 4, 2008)

It just hit me: Perhaps the REW smoothing is fooling me and disguising a larger dip due to the heavy notch? That certainly needs to be checked!

*edit* And I have been considering making plots for the processor-only part of the receiver. I.e. HDMI source -> DSP -> pre-out and measure that. Then it would be possible to plot the exact response for the Yamaha Qs


----------



## nathan_h (Feb 19, 2009)

Great topic. Would be interested to know if any progress has been made on a workaround.

I guess I should assume one could best use the generic correction option instead of any specific EQ brand and model in REW in order to get something somewhat useful for the Yamaha PEQ.

Sure would be cool to know how someone smarter than me does the translation of the REW output into choices in the PEQ. My calibrator says it's pretty straightforward, and for that reason he prefers Yamaha over brands that have fixed EQ like Denon etc.

But of course he does this kind of thing every day. People pay him to fly around the country working on their systems. So he has a bit more expertise and practice than me!


----------



## Federiko (Feb 10, 2016)

+1. It would be great to have Yamaha's peq profile as one of REW equalizer options. I just bought the RXa 1050 and would love to overrule YPAO by using the manual setting and REW. Thank you for such great software!
Fred


----------



## Eotas (Jan 27, 2014)

I would really like this option as well for my yamaha

So +1 from me


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

It’s really impractical for John to profile receivers, there are just too many of them. For any equalizer not supported directly by REW, the pink noise option can be used, which will allow you to tweak the Yamaha’s filters in real time. I did it for my Yamaha and it worked fine.

Regards, 
Wayne


----------

