# Testing the DSpeaker Anti-Mode 8033



## JohnM

*Testing the DSpeaker Anti-Mode 8033*

The DSpeaker Anti-Mode 8033 is an automatic subwoofer EQ device, it aims to simplify the process of equalising a subwoofer whilst employing advanced algorithms to generate precise filters to counter room modes. It is supplied complete with a measurement microphone. Given my long-standing interest in EQ I bought one to see how well it performs. 

The device is very compact, just 126 mm x 80 mm x 28 mm. It has a separate “wall wart” power supply. The front panel has a 3.5mm connector for the measurement microphone; 2 buttons to activate the EQ process, bypass the device or select two bass boost profiles, “Lift 25” and “Lift 35”; and the on/off switch.










The rear panel has a power input, an RCA connector for the sub output from your AV procesor and two RCA connectors for the output to your subwoofer, one of which is inverted (equivalent to setting your sub's phase control to 180 degrees). Usually only one output would be used, though both could be used to drive a passive sub in a bridged configuration with a stereo amp.










The 8033 is for use with subwoofers only. It operates at a 4kHz sampling rate and has a frequency response that is -3dB at 3.3Hz and 100Hz. The response is only relevant when the device is in bypass mode, as it internally applies EQ to give a flat response when it is active. The graph below shows the bypass response.










The processing delay through the unit is 2.7ms, equivalent to 0.9m or 3 feet on a processor's distance setting. Note that the unit has 3dB of gain (the output level is about 1.5 times the input level) even in its bypass mode, remember to recalibrate your sub level after inserting it. THD when fed a 0.5Vrms 40Hz test tone was well below 0.1%.

Operating the unit is very simple. Just connect it up, plug in the microphone and place the mic in your listening position, then press and hold the 2 buttons for a few seconds to start the EQ process. The unit begins with a few seconds of adjusting the level for the mic then starts its sweeps. There are 4 sweeps in total, each lasting 1 minute. Once the sweeps have completed the job is done. It does allow multiple measurements to be taken in addition to the primary position, and according to the manual combine the measurements to deliver EQ that works over a wider area than from a single measurement, though I didn't test that.

I tried the unit out in my lounge, feeding an REL Stadium II sub in one corner of the room, which gets down to about 20Hz in-room. This was the first time I'd measured the sub in there since the room was extensively rearranged. I compared the results of the 8033 with those I got using a BFD (DSP1124P) applying manual EQ. The room itself is L-shaped, with patio doors right across one end.

Here are the results with no EQ (red), the 8033 (green) and then the BFD (blue). Graph axes are from 35dB to 95dB vertically and 15Hz to 200Hz horizontally. 










The 8033 has nicely levelled out the two areas of major resonance. 

Here are the spectral decay plots for each case, first no EQ, then the 8033, then the BFD.




























Finally the waterfalls, no EQ (red), the 8033 (green) and then the BFD (blue). 




























The 8033 does a reasonable job overall, though I had hoped for a little better. In fairness, this is a very difficult room to deal with. The L shape combined with the effect of the patio doors in one wall and a large window on the wall opposite result in two clusters of closely spaced modes spanning about 23 – 31Hz and 52 – 65Hz. To get the results in the manually applied BFD EQ I spent about 3 hours tweaking, remeasuring and re-tweaking the settings, using all 12 filters and the benefit of many years investigating EQ for subwoofers. I applied no filters above 65Hz as there were none left in the channel I used, although another 12 can be had by looping through the other channel I'd kind of had enough by then . To get the 8033 results I pushed two buttons and made a cup of tea. I would expect that in a more conventionally shaped room it would perform even better.

The 8033 worked well and is very easy to use. I would still strongly recommend that anyone wanting the best from their subwoofer spend some time measuring its performance in the room and seeing the effects of changing its position and/or where you sit, as devices like the 8033 or the BFD can only really help with countering the boost from resonances, they cannot correct the dips that all too often occur at certain positions. Having done that though, the 8033 offers an easy way to get the modal EQ aspects covered.


----------



## JohnM

For the sake of completeness, here are the filter settings for the BFD:










Note that it took 7 filters to correct the 20 - 35Hz region, and in that area a change in filter frequency of less than 0.5Hz can be the difference between working and not working.


----------



## brucek

Good review John. 

I see that the 8033B is 225.00 €, which is about US$350. Not a bad price for something so automatic. I guess with the BFD, you're paid to do all the messing around.

The response is quite good, especially at the bottom end. It seems a lot of sub devices forget that many want that low end extension. I see the 25Hz switch lifts from 15Hz-25Hz and activates a digital filter for frequencies below 10Hz. That's a useful feature for the DIY guys.

I also like the input level warning, that flashes one LED at -3dB and then another at 0dB max. Then it has an anti clipper.....

It has 24 distinct anti-modal filters, so I doubt it would run out.

brucek


----------



## bsoko2

Fantastic job John. Your time spent on the testing now justifies my purchase of the 8033. The one advantage that I like about the 8033 is that you can run more than one sub with the unit. I have four subs and have had no problmes with the bass.

Thank you, Bill


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

All it all it seems like a pretty impressive device. Way simpler than the Velo SMS-1 and almost half the price (those people must be spitting nails right about now!) Not sure how one would do a specific house curve for it, though. On a thread at AVS, one of the DSPeaker company proprietors noted that the "lift" settings were house curve options. Not sure I would exactly call them that... 

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## MUCHO

Very nice work thank you! Very much appriciate it.

Sounds to me like this is a very good product if it took your experience + 3 hours to replicate what the 8033 does in a couple of minutes. Obviously not for the tweaker.

If you could do a multi position calibration and compare that to what you can BFD I would love to see it.


----------



## Guest

I think you could use far fewer than 12 BFD filters to get the same or better graph.


----------



## JohnM

Nate said:


> I think you could use far fewer than 12 BFD filters to get the same or better graph.


I don't agree 

To simply correct the overall level of the frequency response fewer filters could be used, but that would not correct the decay. To correct the decay the filters have to match the modal resonances, it is the resonances in the room that determine how many filters are required.


----------



## Lobotomy^

JohnM said:


> I don't agree
> 
> To simply correct the overall level of the frequency response fewer filters could be used, but that would not correct the decay. To correct the decay the filters have to match the modal resonances, it is the resonances in the room that determine how many filters are required.


Really?

Is this for to have effect exact resonance freqency more than frequencys around it? 

For example I have room modes on both 50Hz and 45Hz. These combined makes quite nasty effect which I have tried to even out with as one big modal peak. Rosponse measurements before and after BFD treatment below.









Even though the responce is quite good when BFD is used, reverbation time is at 50Hz is 3 or 4 times longer than frequencys around it. Even with doublesubs I built after the response measurements above.


----------



## JohnM

You should use one filter for each modal peak. The spectral decay plot is the best tool to identify the centre frequencies of the peaks, the modal resonances show up more clearly in the later slices as the rest of the soundfield decays away. The decay plot also makes it easy to see the effect you are having on the decay time as you alter the bandwidth of the peak to get the best match to the mode, and to check you have the correct centre frequency by trying slightly higher and slightly lower frequencies and measuring the result. To accurately counter a mode the filter centre frequency needs to be within 1% of the mode's frequency. 1% corresponds to 1/60th of an octave, which conveniently is the step between frequencies of the BFD. Your "50Hz" peak might be 49.5Hz, or 49.0Hz etc. You will see the difference in the decay plot provided you have the filter bandwidth narrow enough, try starting at 2/60th of an octave on the DSP1124P (or 0.067 octaves on FBQ2496, which specifies the width differently) while identifying the correct centre frequency then vary the bandwidth once the centre frequency is right.


----------



## Doctor X

Can anyone test between the SMS-1 and the 8033 ? It would be interesting to see the graph results on REW between the two. I suspect the 8033 would easily outperform the SMS-1 (in manual tweaking mode). 

I'm also keen on the 8033 and almost about to pull the trigger. I currently have the SMS-1. 

Regards,


----------



## bsoko2

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1048461#post14278205


----------



## htaddikt

It would seem the 8033 is not for 'tailoring' but for 'matching' your specific sub to your room, and in that regard, it is invaluable. Even more remarkable, it is not expensive (compared with SMS), and could not be easier to use.
No doubt, if you have the time and interest, going the BFD/REW route is not only even more economical, but likely just as effective, and certainly affords you an education.
I think either method puts the SMS-1 further down on the list of desirable tools these days.


----------



## stepyourgameup

Would I run Audyssey before or after I setup and run the anti-mode setup?


----------



## htaddikt

stepyourgameup said:


> Would I run Audyssey before or after I setup and run the anti-mode setup?


I think I would treat the 8033, after it does calibration, as an integral part of the subwoofer. And run Audyssey only after the 8033 CAL. 

I don't know enough about Audyssey to know if there would be any significant changes in the bass region. It's a good question.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

htaddikt said:


> I think I would treat the 8033, after it does calibration, as an integral part of the subwoofer. And run Audyssey only after the 8033 CAL.
> 
> I don't know enough about Audyssey to know if there would be any significant changes in the bass region. It's a good question.


If you insist on using the 8033 with Audyssey, I would implement the 8033 before Audyssey set up as you suggest. OTOH, I have found that, while the 8033 does a very nice job with the subwoofer, Audyssey is at least as good and does much else as well. IMHO, there's no need for the 8033 if you have MultEQ XT. (_Possibly_, those with multiple subs might like to have an 8033 on each one before running Audyssey on the ensemble.)

Kal


----------



## Geoff Gunnell

Kal Rubinson said:


> . . . IMHO, there's no need for the 8033 if you have MultEQ XT. . . .


Not sure about that Kal. It would depend on how bad one's room is, whether the additional filters in an outboard EQ would improve subjectively over the number of filters available in Audyssey. Certainly those folks who are running into receiver volume IC limitations with Audyssey alone would benefit by offloading some of the EQ work to an external unit.

I also would set up the 8033 filters first and then configure Audyssey. An unresolved question is, should one stop after the two steps above, letting Audyssey have the final say, or finish by rerunning the 8033 and let it's programming have the last word?


----------



## atledreier

By doing the last option you would potentially undo all the Audyssey corrections, as the 8033 would probably select entirely different filters the second time, as the response is very different. It would be like running Audyssey with one sub, then swapping the sub and run 8033.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Geoff Gunnell said:


> Not sure about that Kal. It would depend on how bad one's room is, whether the additional filters in an outboard EQ would improve subjectively over the number of filters available in Audyssey. Certainly those folks who are running into receiver volume IC limitations with Audyssey alone would benefit by offloading some of the EQ work to an external unit.


Since I have not run into the volume IC limitation and my room is not terrible, I found that the 8033 results were not an improvement on Audyssey's nor did I see any reason to need more filters. 

The limitations of both, of course, are their inflexibility: you get what they serve. (The new AudysseyPro software addresses this.) The other limitation of the 8033 is the number and weighting of different mic positions. 

Kal


----------



## Sonnie

This is what Audyssey in my former NAD T785 did for my three subs combined... no BFD and no 8033. This was two PC13-Ultra's in the front corners and the dual 15" Behemoth in the rear of the room. I was very impressed.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Nate said:


> I think you could use far fewer than 12 BFD filters to get the same or better graph.
> 
> 
> JohnM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree
> 
> To simply correct the overall level of the frequency response fewer filters could be used, but that would not correct the decay. To correct the decay the filters have to match the modal resonances, it is the resonances in the room that determine how many filters are required.
Click to expand...

John,

Did you check the BFD's electrical response for the twelve filters after you were finished?







​

Save for a few minor ripples, I created virtually identical electrical response with seven filters:
















​

Would there be any measurable difference between these two sets of filters? More importantly, would there be any audible difference?

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## JohnM

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Would there be any measurable difference between these two sets of filters?


Yes, most easily seen in the waterfall or low frequency decay plots of the response.



Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> More importantly, would there be any audible difference?


That depends on the audibility of extended decay times, which in turn depends on frequency and how long the decays are.

The filter set I arrived at on the day were determined by examining the effect on the low frequency decay plots of altering the filter parameters and tuning for best results. I've since developed some more advanced impulse response analysis tools to extract the modal resonance parameters directly, avoiding the manual tweaking and remeasuring that was required. Those will be included in the next REW release, once the testing has been completed.


----------



## Andysu

Nice overview on the device John

Flipping I forked out around £120.00 for the Behreinger BFQ2496 I was rather surprised with this devices automatic performance, with slight variances between the (BFQ2496 and the Anti-Mode 8033) interesting most interesting. 

So can you hire this device out for the day?


----------



## vinodk

I am contemplating between SMS-1 & 8033. My room has modal peaks at 28hz(approx 8db) & 50hz(approx 12db) with corresponding dip at 40hz. BFD/REW is too daunting for me therefore I am looking at an auto EQ that will minimize the peaks. Need input from all you experts.
Thanks.


----------



## Sonnie

vinodk said:


> I am contemplating between SMS-1 & 8033. My room has modal peaks at 28hz(approx 8db) & 50hz(approx 12db) with corresponding dip at 40hz. BFD/REW is too daunting for me therefore I am looking at an auto EQ that will minimize the peaks. Need input from all you experts.
> Thanks.


You will probably get more response and/or a better response by starting a new thread. :T


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

vinodk said:


> I am contemplating between SMS-1 & 8033. BFD/REW is too daunting for me therefore I am looking at an auto EQ that will minimize the peaks. Need input from all you experts.


Well, between the SMS and 8033, the 8033 appears to be the easiest to use. 

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## vinodk

Hi Wayne!
I don't mind using SMS-1 in manual mode as it has a relatively easy learning curve. I am trying to figure out which will be better & more effective: using SMS-1 in manual mode or just using 8033.


----------



## htaddikt

vinodk said:


> Hi Wayne!
> I don't mind using SMS-1 in manual mode as it has a relatively easy learning curve. I am trying to figure out which will be better & more effective: using SMS-1 in manual mode or just using 8033.


I would suspect quite close, but the SMS-1 requiring more blood, sweat & tears.


----------



## epereira

htaddikt said:


> I would suspect quite close, but the SMS-1 requiring more blood, sweat & tears.


I agree - I have used both, the 8033 and the SMS-1 and have been quite pleased with the results obtained by either unit. The biggest difference is that you get to tweak (and have to manually adjust the SMS-1) and get to visually see the results - very gratifying IMHO. It does take time to manually calibrate and allows a lot of experimentation - good or bad, you decide.


----------



## goonstopher

If you aready have MultiEQ XT would either of these be good to use with it, maybe sms with manual tweeking rather than automated?


----------



## brucek

> If you aready have MultiEQ XT would either of these be good to use with it, maybe sms with manual tweeking rather than automated?


If you want to manually tweak, then a simple BFD is a fraction of the cost.

brucek


----------



## JimP

htaddikt said:


> I would suspect quite close, but the SMS-1 requiring more blood, sweat & tears.


Which I would have to disagree.

I've been using the SMS-1 since they first came out and only after I used REW to calculate the filters and input the results into the SMS-1 did I get to the level of performance that it appears that John is getting with just the antimode.

So to restate the comparison, there is extremely more to getting the SMS-1 to sound as good as the antimode.

You know, times change. At first the SMS-1 was the piece to get when it came to being user friendly. Then more was learned and now, there are many alternatives that are easier, more accurate, and cheaper. Technology moves on. It'll be interesting what we'll see in a few years that'll make this technology seem dated.


----------



## htaddikt

You just gave excellent reasons to agree, not disagree. Unless you are only talking about differences in accuracy as I have not made the same comparisons. I would also think the amount of correction required will certainly affect how much accuracy is really needed, or would even be noticed.


----------



## JimP

Well, both.  I actually meant to change it once I saw that I agreed with you more than disagreed. 

I agree that it takes more effort but disagree that you'll get the same results without using REW to calculate the filters. The SMS-1 feedback system only address frequency response while REW and the antimode address removal of ringing.


----------



## htaddikt

I knew it...the best minds do think alike...! :bigsmile:

Thanks for mentioning ringing..an excellent point.


----------



## Doctor X

The Anti-mode 8033 was pitted against the BFD, SMS-1 and SVS AS-EQ1 and it looks like it outperformed all of them in terms of reducing ringing times. Of course the reviewer ultimately decided that the SVS AS-EQ1 sounded the best despite the superior decay times of the 8033. 

That's another thing. Looking at John's waterfall plots, the ringing obviously has been reduced but it's still not a major improvement, at least not that I can see. But the other review on AVforums showed a very nice improvement in overall decay times. I also used to own the SMS-1 and I can tell you that it's not as simple as just flattening the response with filters. They don't tell you that in the manual though. 

Creating a flat response is not good enough. One can create 10 flat curves and still have completely different sounding results every time. With my SMS-1, a flat graph equated to boomy, sloppy sounding bass and I never understood at the time why that was the case. Surely I should be getting nice tight, responsive bass, right ? Well, no, not really, although the _level_ of bass had been reduced, the filters that were applied did not target the mode center frequencies with enough precision and the display of the SMS-1 was not accurate enough, in my opinion, to deal with those issues. 

Like the other poster mentioned, it's essential that you use REW to input filters and see the results as the SMS-1 display is not reliable, in my opinion. So for now, it looks like the Anti-mode is the best (and most affordable and easiest to use ) automatic EQ on the planet. 

Regards,


----------



## millerwill

Does the Anit-mode do a better job than Audyssey MultEQ XT? My understanding is that they both work on the same principle, of using time information to choose the eq filters.


----------



## Doctor X

8033 has more available filters to correct modal response. I think. Also, doesn't the Anti-mode have like 1/96 octave resolution ? I'm not 100% sure on that though but perhaps John or Brucek can chime in and correct me if I'm wrong (or right).

Regards,


----------



## JimP

Vaughan100 said:


> The Anti-mode 8033 was pitted against the BFD, SMS-1 and SVS AS-EQ1 and it looks like it outperformed all of them in terms of reducing ringing times. Of course the reviewer ultimately decided that the SVS AS-EQ1 sounded the best despite the superior decay times of the 8033.


I was unable to find that review.

Please give us a link on it.


----------



## Doctor X

Sure. Here : http://www.avforums.com/forums/subwoofers/1053227-eq.html

Regards,


----------



## goonstopher

How would you intergrate it with audyssey? Run audyssey with no sub connected then run antimode and then re-set sub to yes in the menu and select the distance manually? does antimode set distance internally and override the reciever?


----------



## Kal Rubinson

goonstopher said:


> How would you intergrate it with audyssey? Run audyssey with no sub connected then run antimode and then re-set sub to yes in the menu and select the distance manually?


Won't work. If you change the speaker configuration, Audyssey is lost.



> does antimode set distance internally and override the reciever?


Antimode does not set distance or level but has an effect on both.


----------



## goonstopher

Oh ok, so it sounds like using both might be counterproductive. It looks like bfd or manual decives or as-eq1 are the only options with audyssey


----------



## Kal Rubinson

goonstopher said:


> Oh ok, so it sounds like using both might be counterproductive. It looks like bfd or manual decives or as-eq1 are the only options with audyssey


Unless you have a strange room and setup or multiple subs, I do not see why one needs anything in addition to Audyssey MultEQ.


----------



## goonstopher

Kal Rubinson said:


> Unless you have a strange room and setup or multiple subs, I do not see why one needs anything in addition to Audyssey MultEQ.


I have both a strange room and multiple subs ha


----------



## millerwill

Kal Rubinson said:


> Unless you have a strange room and setup or multiple subs, I do not see why one needs anything in addition to Audyssey MultEQ.


I have a pretty standard room (17x13.5x8.3H) with a new SubMersive, running MultEQ XT via a Onk 805. I find Audyssey to do a pretty good job, but still see some significant 'peaks and valleys' in the freq spectrum when I view it on a SMS-1. It's hard to avoid the temptation to use the SMS-1 to even them out. Do you think I'm really doing damage by doing this?


----------



## Kal Rubinson

millerwill said:


> I have a pretty standard room (17x13.5x8.3H) with a new SubMersive, running MultEQ XT via a Onk 805. I find Audyssey to do a pretty good job, but still see some significant 'peaks and valleys' in the freq spectrum when I view it on a SMS-1. It's hard to avoid the temptation to use the SMS-1 to even them out. Do you think I'm really doing damage by doing this?


Dunno but until you can analyze the situation with a better tool than the SMS-1 (like REW, TEF, ETF, etc.) and see what is going on over a wide area and over time, I would not think you can draw a conclusion. It is very possible that further amplitude-domain correction would be at the expense of time-domain issues. Cannot say for sure.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

goonstopher said:


> I have both a strange room and multiple subs ha


Then you qualify. :T


----------



## Ray in Kingwood

where is a good place to purchase the antimode........is it available discounted? I think I will get one for my dual dynasties. I like the automatic part of it, and ease of use. I dont care to tweak and fiddle, but to get an automatic improvement I will be able to instantly utilize and enjoy, then great I want one....... ')


----------



## htaddikt

Ray in Kingwood said:


> where is a good place to purchase the antimode........is it available discounted? I think I will get one for my dual dynasties. I like the automatic part of it, and ease of use. I dont care to tweak and fiddle, but to get an automatic improvement I will be able to instantly utilize and enjoy, then great I want one....... ')


I am not aware of any retailer other than the manufacturer.

http://www.dspeaker.com/en/products/anti-mode-8033.shtml


----------



## hybris

The antimode did a great job at my place. I combined it with manually tweaking the "standing wave control" in my pioneer receiver, thus enabling me to create a decent housecurve. The one on the graph below is 6dB, but I've ended up with a 9dB curve now. It sounds great, and the antimode removed all room modes without any hassle. Not an amazing amount of low end, but that's the limitations of the subwoofer.

This is a XTZ 10" sub and B&W 804s with 100hz x-over frequency.









This is before/after


----------



## Creative Sound

htaddikt said:


> I am not aware of any retailer other than the manufacturer.
> 
> http://www.dspeaker.com/en/products/anti-mode-8033.shtml


Hi,

We have these in stock.

Antimode 8033

Bob


----------



## hybris

And this is waterfall before and after (the overall volume on the subwoofer was somewhat higher before I started so I guess that skews the result somewhat). 

The decay times on the waterfall after calibration is quite decent, right? :blink:

Before:


----------



## atledreier

That waterfall is awesome, dude! Was great to begin with too, though.

Do you have alot of treatments?


----------



## hybris

I have some acoustic treatment, but not really anything that should affect the low frequency area much, I think(?), perhaps except the couch. It's a sleeping couch so it's filled with blankets / eiderdown(?). 

I also have some canvas paintings with acoustic dampening behind them, a carpet on the floor in front of the system and medium/heavy curtains in front of the windows. It is also a relatively assymetric room with a decent amount of furniture. 

The apartment itself is also very well dampened/isolated (as it is a new downtown building in a city with strict regulations on how much outside noise is allowed to filter through to the apartment), so perhaps the actual wall material / plaster is some kind of acoustic panel?


----------



## Frank D

hybris said:


> And this is waterfall before and after (the overall volume on the subwoofer was somewhat higher before I started so I guess that skews the result somewhat).
> 
> The decay times on the waterfall after calibration is quite decent, right? :blink:
> 
> Before:


Decay looks much better.

You seem to have a boost at the low end of your graph just below 65 Hz by at least 5 db. How do you like it? 

Your graph starts at 55 Hz. Can you not display below that?


----------



## hybris

Frank D said:


> Decay looks much better.
> 
> You seem to have a boost at the low end of your graph just below 65 Hz by at least 5 db. How do you like it?
> 
> Your graph starts at 55 Hz. Can you not display below that?


EDIT: Reuploaded all waterfalls so they now show 45-105dB, as I read elsewhere that was the preferred standard scale. 

Sorry, I played around with the graph and obviously didn't pay too much attention to the scale when I made the screenshot. I have reuploaded them in the original post now (please refresh), they now show 20-140hz. 

I have attempted to create a 6dB housecurve starting at 80hz and increasing to 6db at around 40hz as you can see from the graphs a few posts up. It sounds really good, very clean and pure bass. After I did these graphs I've increased the subwoofer another 3dB, which gave me an additional "juice" to the bass especially on older (80s and early 90s) rock recordings that is a bit lean. But it still sounds very balanced and correct. The crossover was also changed from 80hz (before) and 100hz (after).

Here's an overlay (before blue, after beige) as well


----------



## Moonfly

hybris said:


> And this is waterfall before and after (the overall volume on the subwoofer was somewhat higher before I started so I guess that skews the result somewhat).
> 
> The decay times on the waterfall after calibration is quite decent, right? :blink:


The volume change looks to be a perceived one only so not skewing the result. If you look at the dips in the response they are pretty much the same as they were when you started (obviously your boosting has brought them up marginally). The antimode has cut the peaks, which in turn will make the overall sound better/more accurate. The ringing is still there, but due to the peaks reducing they have dropped off the bottom of the scale (and out of your hearing range :T). All in all response has been improved and ringing reduced. FYI, any response where the ringing is within 300ms is good, and you have a better response than many I see with almost all of it within the 300ms target, so well done antimode.

The end result is definitely better looking, and it looks like the antimode is doing its stuff. Overall response if flatter, and ringing has been reduced even with your house curve boost, result :clap:


----------



## hybris

Thanks  

I replaced the waterfall with one stretching out to 600ms now, it shows the improvement even better.


----------



## Moonfly

Cant argue with that. Another positive result for the antimode :T.


----------



## Stigmata

Hi all, would you recommend this over a DEQ2496 / ECM8000 combo for a newbie like me?


----------



## JohnM

It is a very good, minimal user intervention solution, but you would still benefit from doing measurements to find the best (fewest dips) sub position before using it.


----------



## Dimitri_ISF

Hi john,

Thanks for your review.

I've been experimenting with the bfd for years now. And the latest setup I have just won't let itself be EQ'd correctly. Even though my graphs are pretty decent. I can localize the sub at many occasions at several frequencies(crossover at 80Hz.). So I'm thinking about some automated EQ.

Would you say that the 8033 is better for somebody like me who is not an expert in sound using the BFD?. Will the results with the 8033 in a difficult room be better for a novice than the results he'd get with the BFD?. I'm guessing that the 8033 will do a more advanced job than I'm doing now with my manual EQ?.

Can the 8033 be tweaked manually if nescessary?, or is there just the auto mode?.

Thanks,

Dimitri.
The netherlands


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Dimitri_ISF said:


> Can the 8033 be tweaked manually if nescessary?, or is there just the auto mode?.


No and yes.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Dimitri,

John showed in his review that the BFD is much more flexible than the Anti Mode. It’s only going to tackle room modes; that may or may not have anything to do with your localization issue, but I’ll speculate that that’s not the case.

There are a lot of issues that can affect localization, not the least of which is the way the bass is equalized in the program material you’re listening to. I suggest opening a thread and posting some graphs and maybe we can help you figure out the problem. 

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## htaddikt

Wow, here we are a year later. I've been using Anti-Mode 8033 for a while now, and basically happy with since the initial improvement, with no reason to change it except now I am using a receiver with Audyssey (Multi EQ XT). So based on earlier discussion, I went ahead and did the AM again, before doing anything with Audyssey.

Again, taking the approach that the AM is like an integral part of my subwoofer, and the Audyssey will simply tailor my sub system accordingly.

What I ended up with was excessive bass, even following Audyssey's recommendation to initialize at 75 db following the Aud. prep procedure.
I had to cut the bass down about 3db which put it at a comfortable, but still effective level for most kinds of programming.

Now I still have a predominant resonance I never had with just the AM. I would say it is around 40Hz, give or take. I do have a couple of test disks and level meter I can use to pinpoint it eventually.

But other than the change out in receivers, nothing has been altered component-wise or room-wise.
So my next step would be to cal with just Aud. after taking AM out of the picture and see if the resonance will diminish.

Shall report back with more findings. It is curious that the Aud. did not detect and correct for the 'peak'.

*UPDATE:*
*Well, a bit embarrassing. I found out why I had a bass problem. The mic was not fully inserted in the 8033 jack when I ran the cal with it. I imagine the Audyssey did what it could to correct the resulting response. 
If you fail to connect the mic with Audyssey it will not run of course, and if the mic falls it will stop and tell you there is an error.
the AD will do neither (you don't see it on a display anyway..maybe the next version...). 
Jury is still out with regards to the difference with the AD in or out when running Audyssey. As standalone processes, I think I prefer the Audyssey. *


----------



## KalaniP

Hi, sorry to tack onto this thread, but it seems like there are lots of knowledgeable folks following it, so perhaps a good place to ask. (If I should start another thread instead, please let me know and I will do so)

I have a Denon 3312, which has Audyssey MultiEQ XT. I currently have one sub, the Emotiva Ultra 12, but I'm about to add a second Ultra 12 to the mix. I've read enough on this forum and others to know that getting subs smoothed out and properly set up is a major issue, so I want to make sure things are at their best.

My room is probably tricky, given that it opens up to another, larger room to the right, AND is open to the kitchen, in the back. Should I bother with a device like this, or would I be better served with something more advanced, given that I'm about to have two subs and a potentially tricky room? I gather the MultiEQ XT in my receiver will be of limited help, since I have two subs. I'd love something less expensive than the SVS AS-EQ1 but if that's the only thing that will really get the job done, I don't think I have another other options? Or would something like this work as well (or perhaps I'd need two, with two subs, putting me back in the AS-EQ1 price range)?


----------



## htaddikt

Nothing to be sorry for, I tried both and found doing the AM first prior to calibration with Audyssey seems to be the way to go. 
I would say Audyssey overall does the best job between the two, but the differences do not seem major as far as bass response. Naturally, Audyssey is also calibrating all speaker distances, etc. 
It is likely be somewhat difficult to get a hold of an AM8033 on a trial basis for comparison.
I find both systems effective at what they do, and apparently play nice with each other.
I think if I had a receiver or processor with Audyseey it is unlikely I would bother with the 8033.
That said, there may be some conditions where the 8033 would work better, but can not envision any offhand.


----------



## KalaniP

htaddikt said:


> Nothing to be sorry for, I tried both and found doing the AM first prior to calibration with Audyssey seems to be the way to go.
> I would say Audyssey overall does the best job between the two, but the differences do not seem major as far as bass response. Naturally, Audyssey is also calibrating all speaker distances, etc.
> It is likely be somewhat difficult to get a hold of an AM8033 on a trial basis for comparison.
> I find both systems effective at what they do, and apparently play nice with each other.
> I think if I had a receiver or processor with Audyseey it is unlikely I would bother with the 8033.
> That said, there may be some conditions where the 8033 would work better, but can not envision any offhand.


Even with two subs? Audyssey MultiEQ XT does not calibrate multiple subs separately, only summed together simultaneously.


----------



## htaddikt

KalaniP said:


> Even with two subs? Audyssey MultiEQ XT does not calibrate multiple subs separately, only summed together simultaneously.


I was just about to edit my post related to 2 subs. I have no experience with 2 subs to relate to personally, however, I recall on one of the other forums....the 'av science one' a tutorial on Audyssey (under receivers, amps... forum category) including what seemed to me be a fairly straight-forward procedure for dealing with multiple subs.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14456895#post14456895

I hope this helps, there may be similar Audyssey/more-than-one sub info on this forum I had missed.


----------



## KalaniP

Thanks for the tip, I see these instructions:



> A few receiver and processor models are able to apply individual Audyssey equalization curves to multiple subwoofers simultaneously. If you do not own one of these units, the SVS AS-EQ1 will apply individual Audyssey equalization curves to two subwoofers simultaneously. Alternatively, you can follow the below advice to have two subwoofers share one Audyssey equalization curve.
> 
> A. Place the subwoofers symmetrically within the room, if at all possible.
> 
> B. Place the subwoofers at identical distances from the primary listening position, if at all possible.
> 
> 1. When two subwoofers are driven as one unit, proper time alignment is critical.
> 
> 2. The two subwoofers will not be properly time aligned unless they have the same physical distance from the primary listening position.
> 
> 3. Adjusting the physical distance of the two subs effectively adjusts their time delay.
> 
> *C. The above advice applies only to sealed rectangular rooms without any openings.*
> 
> D. Follow the steps in subwoofer setup (section II.) for each subwoofer: Ensure the polarity settings are the same.
> 
> E. As an alternative to locating the subs at equal distances from the main listening position, you may insert an electronic device between the receiver / processor and the nearest subwoofer.
> 
> 1. This device should introduce a time delay such that its output sound reaches the main listening position at the same time as the farthest subwoofer.
> 
> F. Attempt to match the output level of both subwoofers.
> 
> 1. Use the receiver / processor internal LFE test tone while adjusting the volume control on the subwoofer to perform the following:
> 
> 2. Turn one subwoofer on, and adjust the output level to 80 dB using an SPL meter.
> a. Ensure the SPL meter is located where the first Audyssey measurement position will be taken (see section V.), and is set to “C” and “Slow”.
> b. If you do not have an SPL meter, adjust the level by ear.
> 
> 3. Turn off the first subwoofer, turn on the second subwoofer, and repeat the procedure.
> 
> 4. Turn on both subwoofers and calibrate with Audyssey.


Unfortunately, due to "C" (bolded above), I don't think that will work for me. I believe I pretty clearly fall into the camp of needing something out of the ordinary to achieve effective sub EQ.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

> C. The above advice applies only to sealed rectangular rooms without any openings.


I wonder how that is qualified. All real-world rooms have, at the very least, one doorway even if it is closed and locked. Most non-dedicated rooms also have a window or two. Even so, I would recommend steps A to B3 as a starting point.

I have 2 doorways, 2 closet doors and 4 windows in my CT room where I have used Audyssey/SVS and other EQs for years. I make it a point to measure/calibrate the system/room in the same configuration as it will be used. That means that the 2 doorways are open and the 2 closet doors are closed. I have 2 calibration setups, one for windows/drapes closed (winter) and the other for windows/drapes open (summer).


----------



## htaddikt

KalaniP said:


> Thanks for the tip, I see these instructions:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, due to "C" (bolded above), I don't think that will work for me. I believe I pretty clearly fall into the camp of needing something out of the ordinary to achieve effective sub EQ.


I agree, the conditions do not seem to be 'real-world' for most listening rooms.

Perhaps the AM might be a better solution for the subs, and then run Audyssey as a final one-step procedure. 
Might continue on the same thread I referenced, I am sure there is more discussion related to multiple subs.

And along that line.....

http://ask.audyssey.com/entries/124010-room-equalization-with-multiple-subwoofers


----------



## KalaniP

htaddikt said:


> I agree, the conditions do not seem to be 'real-world' for most listening rooms.
> 
> Perhaps the AM might be a better solution for the subs, and then run Audyssey as a final one-step procedure.
> Might continue on the same thread I referenced, I am sure there is more discussion related to multiple subs.
> 
> And along that line.....
> 
> http://ask.audyssey.com/entries/124010-room-equalization-with-multiple-subwoofers


Very interesting link, thanks!

Since, according to that link (and my impression from other sources), no current AVR implements the ability to truly deal with 2 subs independently, it seems like my choices are either 2 AMs (one for each sub, get each set up and THEN run the AVR's Audyssey), or just bite the bullet and buy the SVS AQ-1 which does everything I need and more. 

The costs are not all that different: 2x $315 for the AMs is $630, and probably more like $650-700 by the time it hits my doorstep, or simply buy the SV AS-EQ1, which has lots of other added goodies (computer interface, graphs, etc) for $769.

I was REALLY hoping not to have to spend that much, but I don't see a way around it... short of spending weeks or months learning all the ins and outs of REW and somehow doing everything manually (but don't you still need some sort of hardware to actually implement a change? So perhaps not even there...).

Time to start saving my pennies...


----------



## htaddikt

Well, you certainly have some interesting options. I hope you don't find it too disconcerting if the degree of improvement with time corrected subs (per Audyssey) is not commensurate with the funds and effort you put in to it. Certainly an educational experience can be expensive but still be invaluable.


----------



## 01prerunner

Hi, 

I have a pioneer elite SC-61 on the way and just ordered a 8033Cinema from Creative Sound. Going to be running Klipsch Ref II towers/center and a Hsu VTF15H. Looking for a couple of clarifications if anyone has them.


I understand you need to cut down the sub volume when you run the 8033 calibration. 
I assume increasing the volume to get a proper trim level result with MCACC afterwards has no bearing on the 8033 calibration?
I do not intend on doing much with MCACC other than running Auto and keeping my manual speaker settings of an 80hz xover and speakers set to small. 
Is there anything else in MCACC I should cut off or not use, since Im using the 8033? I know MCACC doesnt seem to do much with the sub if any, but I need to research the standing wave feature.

Any pointers welcome, thanks.


----------



## htaddikt

01prerunner said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have a pioneer elite SC-61 on the way and just ordered a 8033Cinema from Creative Sound. Going to be running Klipsch Ref II towers/center and a Hsu VTF15H. Looking for a couple of clarifications if anyone has them.
> 
> 
> I understand you need to cut down the sub volume when you run the 8033 calibration.
> 
> *
> Recommended, it gets quite loud.*
> 
> I assume increasing the volume to get a proper trim level result with MCACC afterwards has no bearing on the 8033 calibration?
> 
> 
> *Should be fine. The 8033 is more about trim than level. If the volume is too low, MCACC, etc. should get it back with out affecting the improved bass response.*
> 
> 
> 
> I do not intend on doing much with MCACC other than running Auto and keeping my manual speaker settings of an 80hz xover and speakers set to small.
> Is there anything else in MCACC I should cut off or not use, since Im using the 8033? I know MCACC doesnt seem to do much with the sub if any, but I need to research the standing wave feature.
> 
> *Make sure your AVR is turned off when the 8033 is in CAL mode. But you can leave it connected.*
> 
> 
> Any pointers welcome, thanks.


I have highlighted responses. Let us know your impressions when finished.


----------



## 01prerunner

Thanks, one clarification.

Say, using Audyssey in the past, I had the sub gain in between 8 and 9 oclock on the knob, to ensure the Audyssey sub trim level was set in the AVR in between +3 and -3 db. 

Before I run the 8033, I would turn the knob 7 oclock for example. Afterwards, should I return the knob to the "8:30" range and the rerun MCACC?

I guess that's my spot of slight confusion. The way I see it is, lower the gain knob since the calibration is so loud, then set it back to norm and rerun MCACC, which will then finalize the subwoofer level setting in the AVR where it feels it should be to match the speakers.


----------



## htaddikt

That sounds logical. To me 8 or 9 sounds very high. Mine has never been higher than 4 or 5. But it's all relative, and every system and sub is different. You might set it around 5, and see how loud it is during the calibration. Then run your AVR cal and see it if compensates correctly. Just a more cautious approach. I'd rather waste a little time than have it too high. But that's me. Sounds like you have a handle on it.


----------

