# Anti mode v. Xt32



## Rooster19

Has anyone measured what these two would do to a sub?

Are they complimentary, or redundant?


----------



## vidiot33

They both would operate similarly. Personally, having used both, I prefer the Antimode, but many users are very happy with Audyssey.


----------



## vidiot33

They would be redundant, and you probably would not need to use both.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

I’m no expert on Audyssey, but I think it will add boost as needed to troughs in response, while Antimode will only cut peaks. If that is indeed the case, then Audyssey will do a better job with the sub. I’ve seen people post Antimode graphs that “left behind” troughs that were severe enough, IMO, to be audible.

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## vidiot33

I don't believe Audyssey will boost dips. If it attempted this in null areas, it would shut down amps attempting to provide current to correct this.


----------



## jtalden

Just jumping in to confirm that Audyssey does provide both boosts and cuts as needed. I have measured the resulting preamp output voltages after applying Audyssey XT. 

I know nothing about the Antimode and nothing about the relative merits between the two. I don't use either unit so I have no investment either way.


----------



## 3ll3d00d

You would use both if you have a modal peak larger than one alone can handle. In my experience this is not uncommon with a small room and a corner loaded sub. You may also want the low shelf you can implement with an antimode.


----------



## vidiot33

jtalden said:


> Just jumping in to confirm that Audyssey does provide both boosts and cuts as needed. I have measured the resulting preamp output voltages after applying Audyssey XT. I know nothing about the Antimode and nothing about the relative merits between the two. I don't use either unit so I have no investment either way.


From what I've been able to determine, Audyssey can deal with "troughs"- that is shallow drops in FR, but no equalization can deal with nulls which are created by poor speaker and/or listener position. I think there's an over dependence on EQ to correct poor room/speaker interactions that can only be fixed by proper positioning and room treatment. In other words, the less EQ the better.


----------



## jtalden

Most everyone agrees regarding nulls and I don't necessary disagree on the rest of those comments.

It could also be said however that no matter the acoustic treatments and speaker/LP positioning there can always be some improvement with proper application of EQ. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that many people go overboard with acoustic treatments as well.

So for a given room and speakers it is probably better to say; use appropriate acoustics treatments, appropriate speaker/LP positioning and appropriate EQ to get the best result. They all have their place and there is some overlap between them in what problems they can address.

The trick is determining what is appropriated for each. That depends on the specifics and constraints of the situation.


----------



## vidiot33

jtalden said:


> Most everyone agrees regarding nulls and I don't necessary disagree on the rest of those comments.
> 
> It could also be said however that no matter the acoustic treatments and speaker/LP positioning there can always be some improvement with proper application of EQ. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that many people go overboard with acoustic treatments as well.
> 
> So for a given room and speakers it is probably better to say; use appropriate acoustics treatments, appropriate speaker/LP positioning and appropriate EQ to get the best result. They all have their place and there is some overlap between them in what problems they can address.
> 
> The trick is determining what is appropriated for each. That depends on the specifics and constraints of the situation.


While I would agree that some overdo room treatment, I think there's a lot more who trust EQ to solve all acoustic problems and pay little attention to treatments, positioning, etc. I completely agree that balance is needed and every situation will be different.


----------



## gazoink

vidiot33 said:


> I don't believe Audyssey will boost dips. If it attempted this in null areas, it would shut down amps attempting to provide current to correct this.


For this reason Audyssey has a maximum gain of 9dB for any boost filter.


----------



## rgordonpf

Disclosure: One of my audio friends is the USA distributor for DSPeaker products. I have essentially been a beta tester for the early versions of most of the DSPeaker products. I currently own the Anti Mode 8033S, the Dual Core, and the HeaDSPeaker. I have never used any of the Audessy products.

If you turn to page 9 of the Dual Core User's Manual at the below URL you will see a graph of the original uncorrected and the corrected frequency response curves.

http://www.dspeaker.com/fileadmin/datasheets/dspeaker/AntiMode20DualCoreEng.pdf

This is another uncorrected and corrected graph taken from the DSPeaker website. 









The Anti Mode and the Dual Core do fill in some of the troughs, but only slightly. Per the manufacturer, filling in a large trough will require a lot of power which many amps can not provide. They also feel that even if the amp can provide the power, the speaker may not be designed to handle that amount of power. Not wanting to drive amps into clipping or blowing out woofers, the manufacturer chose to be conservative. They also have said that narrow valleys in the lower frequencies are usually inaudible. The trough around 60Hz in the above graph would be quite noticeable.

In my audio system, I was happy with the way the 8033S smoothed out the bass response. However, this was done after proper placement of the subwoofer and adequate room treatment. Even with proper placement, room treatment, and EQ you probably won't get a flat response curve from 20 Hz to 150Hz unless you have a large room.


----------



## vidiot33

Good contribution! Thanks


----------



## audiothuis

Hi all,

You cannot compare Anti-Mode to Audyssey, because Audyssey comes in many flavours.
The top end, Audyssey Pro, doesn't need Anti-Mode. The consumer versions of Audyssey have different versions and the early versions defenitly benefit from an Anti-Mode. Why?
Anti-Mode measures the range from 16-170 Hz per Hz and applies a correction per Hz.
That is much more precise that the cheaper versions of Audyssey do.
So start with AM and than use Audyssey.
I'm an Audyssey Pro installer and I sell Anti-Mode, so I do have experience with both units.

An other thing to bear in mind is that Audyssey seems not to develop anymore in their systems. Dolby Atmos seems to take over as the new HT format. On the other hand DSPeaker develops new units and features. Especially for subwoofers and stereo they have good solutions.

ron


----------



## Kal Rubinson

audiothuis said:


> Hi all,
> 
> You cannot compare Anti-Mode to Audyssey, because Audyssey comes in many flavours.
> The top end, Audyssey Pro, doesn't need Anti-Mode. The consumer versions of Audyssey have different versions and the early versions defenitly benefit from an Anti-Mode.


Actually, one should say that XT32 (with or without AudysseyPro) does not benefit from Anti-Mode. AudysseyPro is limited to the capabilities of the version of Audyssey already resident on the AVR or prepro. It does more precise measurement and calculation and uses a better mic but it cannot change the capacity of the version installed in firmware.



> Anti-Mode measures the range from 16-170 Hz per Hz and applies a correction per Hz.
> That is much more precise that the cheaper versions of Audyssey do.
> So start with AM and than use Audyssey.
> I'm an Audyssey Pro installer and I sell Anti-Mode, so I do have experience with both units.


OK.



> An other thing to bear in mind is that Audyssey seems not to develop anymore in their systems. Dolby Atmos seems to take over as the new HT format.


Yes. That is unfortunate especially since ATMOS and Audyssey have nothing in common.


----------



## FargateOne

audiothuis said:


> Hi all,
> 
> You cannot compare Anti-Mode to Audyssey, because Audyssey comes in many flavours.
> The top end, Audyssey Pro, doesn't need Anti-Mode. The consumer versions of Audyssey have different versions and the early versions defenitly benefit from an Anti-Mode. Why?
> Anti-Mode measures the range from 16-170 Hz per Hz and applies a correction per Hz.
> That is much more precise that the cheaper versions of Audyssey do.
> So start with AM and than use Audyssey.
> I'm an Audyssey Pro installer and I sell Anti-Mode, so I do have experience with both units.
> 
> An other thing to bear in mind is that Audyssey seems not to develop anymore in their systems. Dolby Atmos seems to take over as the new HT format. On the other hand DSPeaker develops new units and features. Especially for subwoofers and stereo they have good solutions.
> 
> ron


Hi sir,
I begin to use I just get Anti-mode Dual core 2.0 between my Yamaha RX-V773 receiver and my single woofer to EQ the bass for a 5.1 home cinema (see my system in my profile). 

I would greatly appreciate some advise how to get the best of it.

I put the crossover in the receiver to 100hz (all speakers set to small) and bypass the LFE filter in the sub.
A "typical" calibration goes from 20hz to 150hz
But Dual Core calibration advance settings enables to lower the upper limit of the frequencies to be equalized between 80 and 150hz (the unit check the frequency response until 500hz but equalize to 150hz only if I understand well).

My questions:
1-For the best results with crossover at 100hz, do I limit Dual Core at 100hz for his equing process (a "typical" calibration goes fromm 20hz to 150hz) to match the crossover limit in the receiver?
Or is it better to let the Typical calibration eq until 150hz ?
2- Dual core room curves indicates a -16hz hole (nods or near a null) for 125hz. I no that a null is a null ( 100 x 0 = 0 even in sound !) But Dual core can help a little in this area.
Is it a good idea to raise the crossover in the receiver to 150hz and let Dual Core managed this with equing at 150hz ?


----------



## audiothuis

FargateOne said:


> Hi sir,
> I begin to use I just get Anti-mode Dual core 2.0 between my Yamaha RX-V773 receiver and my single woofer to EQ the bass for a 5.1 home cinema (see my system in my profile).
> 
> I would greatly appreciate some advise how to get the best of it.
> 
> I put the crossover in the receiver to 100hz (all speakers set to small) and bypass the LFE filter in the sub.
> A "typical" calibration goes from 20hz to 150hz
> But Dual Core calibration advance settings enables to lower the upper limit of the frequencies to be equalized between 80 and 150hz (the unit check the frequency response until 500hz but equalize to 150hz only if I understand well).
> 
> My questions:
> 1-For the best results with crossover at 100hz, do I limit Dual Core at 100hz for his equing process (a "typical" calibration goes fromm 20hz to 150hz) to match the crossover limit in the receiver?
> Or is it better to let the Typical calibration eq until 150hz ?
> 2- Dual core room curves indicates a -16hz hole (nods or near a null) for 125hz. I no that a null is a null ( 100 x 0 = 0 even in sound !) But Dual core can help a little in this area.
> Is it a good idea to raise the crossover in the receiver to 150hz and let Dual Core managed this with equing at 150hz ?


A1- First of all it is best to do a standard or typical calibration. DC will determine the best x-over for yes and no correction. This x-over point is shown by a vertical black band in the display and is not limited to 150 Hz. It might be 200 Hz too. It depends on the measurement data. Check if this point is correct. By correct I mean that the orange and black graph come together. If yes, you're alright. If not you may choose a different x-over according to the graph and do an advanced calbration.

A2- I do not understand this: _a -16hz hole (nods or near a null) for 125hz_
Do you mean -16dB? Can you make a picture and post it? That will clarify your question.
You should set the x-over in the receiver for the sub (LPF) at >200 Hz to be sure DC can determine the right x-over point.
Always use the lfe input on the sub to bypass the controls on the sub.
Let DC do the (smart) work.
By moving your sub, you may get better results. DC is a great tool to help you to find this best spot.
And of course, do read the manual of DC.


----------



## FargateOne

audiothuis said:


> A2- I do not understand this: _a -16hz hole (nods or near a null) for 125hz_
> Do you mean -16dB? Can you make a picture and post it? That will clarify your question.
> You should set the x-over in the receiver for the sub (LPF) at >200 Hz to be sure DC can determine the right x-over point.
> Always use the lfe input on the sub to bypass the controls on the sub.
> Let DC do the (smart) work.
> By moving your sub, you may get better results. DC is a great tool to help you to find this best spot.
> And of course, do read the manual of DC.


Many thanks for your detailed and much appreciated response. Now I am going somewhere !
English is not my first language. Also I made a mistake: it is a dip (drop) of-16dB for 75hz showned in the graphic "before and after". But the LPF in the receiver was set at 100hz.
(I have read the manual but with my little brain (!) reading and understanding correctly are 2 things, ask to my wife !)

I did not think about the crossover setting in the receiver. It makes sense! I will repeat the calibration tonight and will try to take a photo. 

About moving the sub, after crawling etc and many experiments, only 2 places left. One gives 3 frequencies drops of more or less -10 db ( 75hz, 83 and 125). The other gives the result above.

1- Am I right to think the later is better (one big drop better than many drops ?)
Thank again for your time.


----------



## FargateOne

...Hummm!? The more I think about to set LPF in the receiver at +200hz before calibration with DC, the more I am confused ?
My connection: receiver sub analog output to DC analog left input , DC left analog output to sub left input.
In my mind, test tones generated by DC do not go in the receiver before to playback in the sub. Aren't they produce by DC and send to the sub directly ?
What do I miss ?


----------



## jb5200

I have a question regarding XT32. If I have a null in the MLP, are room treatments the only way to correct this if I can't re-position the speakers/sub very much? 

After I run XT32 no matter where I sit on the couch (although it is the worst where I put the mic for the 1st position) there is no bass. If I get up and walk around the room to certain locations there's a lot of bass and sometimes too much, especially if I try to boost the sub to gain any bass for the couch position.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

I don’t think you’ve mentioned where in the room your listening position is, but if it’s at or near the center of the room what you’re experiencing is perfectly normal. In most rooms, especially symmetrical ones, bass levels are reduced at the dead center of the room, and increase as you move towards any boundary. It’s also normal, from what I read here, for Audyssey to calibrate bass levels low. All you need to do is turn up the sub level.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## jb5200

Yeah it is sorta in the center. The room is 14 1/2'w X 21l X 7h and the couch is rough 111/2' from the front wall but speakers are pulled out 2' from the wall. As far as left to right it is in the center. Will room treatments help my cause, I get EQ won't b/c any multiple of 0 is still zero but is there a little trick I can do or it is what it is?


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

This is not a null. A null is a deep, narrow hole in response at a specific frequency. The center-of-room “bass dead zone” (as I call it) is something different. Since it is not a null, technically EQ could help, but EQ is really for addressing frequency-specific issues. The issue with the “dead bass zone” is a _wholesale_ loss of level, not just at a specific frequency range. Using an equalizer as a defacto volume control is bad form. There are better ways to increase signal levels.

Treatments are merely for making the room less lively by absorbing and diffusing reflections. Bass traps will reduce nulls in low end response and long decay times. So I don’t think any treatments are going to help a center-of-room bass dead zone. You’ll either have to move your location closer to a wall or simply increase the subwoofer level. Just increase the sub level as I suggested and most likely you’ll be fine, unless you already have the sub maxed out.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Skylinestar

audiothuis said:


> An other thing to bear in mind is that Audyssey seems not to develop anymore in their systems. Dolby Atmos seems to take over as the new HT format. On the other hand DSPeaker develops new units and features. Especially for subwoofers and stereo they have good solutions.
> 
> ron


It looks like Dspeaker also comes to a halt in development. No new models after 2 years.


----------



## audiothuis

FargateOne said:


> ...Hummm!? The more I think about to set LPF in the receiver at +200hz before calibration with DC, the more I am confused ?
> My connection: receiver sub analog output to DC analog left input , DC left analog output to sub left input.
> In my mind, test tones generated by DC do not go in the receiver before to playback in the sub. Aren't they produce by DC and send to the sub directly ?
> What do I miss ?


Oeps, my error (confused with Audyssey).
Yes DC generates the test tones and sends them to the subwoofer.
Set the LPF setting of the receiver higher than the x-over that DC calculates, so you will not miss bass.

Audiothuis (GMT+1)


----------



## audiothuis

FargateOne said:


> .........
> About moving the sub, after crawling etc and many experiments, only 2 places left. One gives 3 frequencies drops of more or less -10 db ( 75hz, 83 and 125). The other gives the result above.
> 
> 1- Am I right to think the later is better (one big drop better than many drops ?)
> Thank again for your time.


Yes, the less drops the better. If you have to choose, let your ears judge. It is not only mathematical, but also what you like. (reference vs preference).


----------



## littlejohn74

FargateOne said:


> ...Hummm!? The more I think about to set LPF in the receiver at +200hz before calibration with DC, the more I am confused ?
> My connection: receiver sub analog output to DC analog left input , DC left analog output to sub left input.
> In my mind, test tones generated by DC do not go in the receiver before to playback in the sub. Aren't they produce by DC and send to the sub directly ?
> What do I miss ?



When setting up your DC, don't worry about your AVR. In fact, turn the AVR off when setting up the DC.
You are correct in saying that the DC is what's generating the test tones.
The procedure is;
1. AVR off. Run AM setup
2. AVR on, AM on, and run the room correction process.

For initial use, I would not bother with the advance setup. The basic (default) setup should be all you need, do that then listen for a few weeks and see how you like it. It could be advantageous to add a calibration point to the left and right of the MLP about 50cm either side.
If you're still not happy with the sound, then I suggest you experiment with different sub locations and or use more than one sub.


----------



## Phillips

jb5200 said:


> Yeah it is sorta in the center. The room is 14 1/2'w X 21l X 7h and the couch is rough 111/2' from the front wall but speakers are pulled out 2' from the wall. As far as left to right it is in the center. Will room treatments help my cause, I get EQ won't b/c any multiple of 0 is still zero but is there a little trick I can do or it is what it is?


Could try the phase on the sub might not work but worth a try


----------



## FargateOne

littlejohn74 said:


> The procedure is;
> 1. AVR off. Run AM setup
> 2. AVR on, AM on, and run the room correction process.
> 
> For initial use, I would not bother with the advance setup. The basic (default) setup should be all you need, do that then listen for a few weeks and see how you like it. It could be advantageous to add a calibration point to the left and right of the MLP about 50cm either side.
> If you're still not happy with the sound, then I suggest you experiment with different sub locations and or use more than one sub.


Thank for your help everybody.. 
I am surprise how only 2.5 cm (1 inch) backward or forward can do a difference. Measurements with AM show no dip at all at 75hz, others at higher frequencies but one big problem solves.


----------



## vidiot33

FargateOne said:


> Thank for your help everybody.. I am surprise how only 2.5 cm (1 inch) backward or forward can do a difference. Measurements with AM show no dip at all at 75hz, others at higher frequencies but one big problem solves.


Does moving it make an audible difference, or just a measurable one?

Sent from my iPhone using HTShack


----------



## FargateOne

Hello,
I think that it is audible in details in bass like cello music or bass guitar ( in film at least)
Maybe not audible for the sub alone.
But I think that it helps a lot YPAO ( Audyssey ?) to do is job ; sound of the others channels less like in a tube (canny ? we say in english?).
Also about sub location I found on the web some room mode calculator ( for instance here http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Innovation/Pages/Calculators.aspx?CategoryID=Calculators) that helped me to understand a problem in my room. I am so lucky (!!!) that my MLP (main lissening position th most important for the EQ automatic procedure) is right on the spot of a complete cancelation (null) at 75hz for the *3 axials mode*s of my room!!! So perfect infinite nulls at 150hz and 300hz etc. That was the reason why YPAO tried to add +4.5 db on 2 filters for 150hz and 296 hz !!
Knowing that, I made a compromise and took the first reading (either YPAO or Anti-mode) at the MLP and all others YPAO readings at least 3 inches forward the MLP and never there again. NOW YPAO does a good job for FR higher than 200hz ( 20 - 200 managed by Anti-mode very well).


----------



## FargateOne

OH!
And an other thing I forqot to tell is that my sub was right on the spot of the null for 75hz in front of the MLP cancelling totally this FR. Si it is easy to understand why YPAO desperatly tried to correct the problem !


----------



## FargateOne

littlejohn74 said:


> For initial use, I would not bother with the advance setup. The basic (default) setup should be all you need, do that then listen for a few weeks and see how you like it. It could be advantageous to add a calibration point to the left and right of the MLP about 50cm either side.
> If you're still not happy with the sound, then I suggest you experiment with different sub locations and or use more than one sub.


Done, and yes I have choosen a different sub location. After a room measurement with DC, I moved the sub backward of 8cm (2 inches more or less) it changed the first deep valley to 147hz and DC equalizes very well the peaks before this FR.

This week-end I will try to add 2 calibration point and see...hear what it does.

I have a question but maybe it is not the right thread for it.
It is difficult for me to understand "headroom adjustments" option in DC. I read about "headroom" and I am not sure to understand the relation between the filters applied in EQ and the need to choose a value calculated in dB for the headroom and the advantage to do so or to let DC to fix an automatic headroom. 
Someone in an other forum suggested to lower the setting from 6 dB to 3 or 0 dB. I do not want to risk it as I do not understand what I am doing.


----------



## audiothuis

FargateOne said:


> .......
> I have a question but maybe it is not the right thread for it.
> It is difficult for me to understand "headroom adjustments" option in DC. I read about "headroom" and I am not sure to understand the relation between the filters applied in EQ and the need to choose a value calculated in dB for the headroom and the advantage to do so or to let DC to fix an automatic headroom.
> Someone in an other forum suggested to lower the setting from 6 dB to 3 or 0 dB. I do not want to risk it as I do not understand what I am doing.


Depending on the filters you use, the output signal may be louder than the input signal. If the input signal is at its max, the output signal will be clipped, distorted, because it will be over the max.
In order to prevent that, you have your headroom setting. Basicly it turns down the volume to prevent clipping.
Comparison: if you walk in a room where the ceiling is just an inch above your head, you're fine as long you do not jump up and down. When the ceiling (headroom) is 3 feet, you can jump up and down without bumping your head.
So, it is safe to have a headroom, but if you feel you can do with less headroom, just try it. Whenever you hear clipping (distortion), create more headroom. The headroom calculated by AM usually is a safe setting.


----------



## FargateOne

audiothuis said:


> So, it is safe to have a headroom, but if you feel you can do with less headroom, just try it. Whenever you hear clipping (distortion), create more headroom. The headroom calculated by AM usually is a safe setting.


Great explanation. Thanks.
So, putting aside the clipping (easy to herar) that it is not a problem for my system, am I right to say that headroom has nothing to do with a better sound stage imaging?
If I lower the setting for headroom, for example from 5,0dB (automatic setting by Anti-mode) to 0 or -1dB it will not influence the sound imaging ? The only reason to lower it it is for loundness (sound level ).


----------



## FargateOne

You know what? Your forum created a monster! Myself!:dumbcrazy:
First, I read and learned. Second, I began to understand. Third, I wanted to know more. Forth, I wanted to do better with what I have. There's where troubles began!
So, I add Anti-mode Dual Core 2.0 to EQ my PSB subsonic 5i. Best addition I ever had. It helps a lot for sound quality and sound stage image.
But, the sub suddenly neads repairs (a humm and a vibration that the test tones from DC have put in evidence).
2 weeks without a sub? Impossible.(see the monster above !)
Then, I decided to try a new sub just in case the old one (9 years of good services) could not be repaired. Taking advantage of theire 45 days trial policy, I have a SVS PC-2000 at home since friday !!
Now I really am in troubles (WAF alert). !!
What a difference !:yikes:

Here is the weird thing.
DC calibration for my PSB sub always shows a deep narrow drop of -26 dB at 147hz which I intrepreted as a room mode (that seemed correct because confirmed by a room mode calculator).

Here is my question.

I placed the SVS at the very same spot than the PSB ( I have no options for that). I calibrated the new SVS PC-2000 with DC. The dip at 147hz *disappeared* ?? WHY ? :dontknow:The curve now shows a little drop of -4,5dB at 40hz only???? If it was a room mode it should not have disappeared, isn't it ?


----------

