# Sticky  Audyssey Graphs - Please post your results!



## Sonnie

Please post your Audyssey graphs (before and after) here in this thread.

Be sure to tell us what processor or receiver you are using.


*Please keep graphs only in this thread and any comments in the Audyssey MultEQ Discussion Thread.*

Thanks!

******************************

This is from my NAD T785 .... Audyssey MultEQ.

Gold = No EQ
Red = NAD Audyssey 

Sub response range... 1/3 octave smoothing...











Full range... 1/3 octave smoothing...











Sub gain had to be cut considerably from this... it was about 20db hot! I'll get some new graphs posted soon.

All in all, I am very happy with what Audyssey did with my response, especially in the lower end. No reason to even hook up my BFD with this response. Rodny came down to the house today and we setup my new receiver and the new pair of SVS PC-Ultra subs. What surprised us the most is how well Audyssey is able to handle the lowest octaves with what seems to be no adverse effects thus far.


*Please keep graphs only in this thread and any comments in the Audyssey MultEQ Discussion Thread.*

Thanks!


----------



## Jerm357

Yea, Audyssey is awesome. Heres some graphs from my Onkyo 705 which uses Audyssey MultEQ XT. 
First the sub. This is before with no smoothing








Heres after Audyssey








Together








Now heres the the full range response with and without Audyssey. This is with 1/3 smoothing 








Heres a closer view with Audyssey from 10-1000hz








No Audyssey.








Both close.











Now I think the large peek and roll off around 5000hz is caused by the Radioshack meter I used since this SPL meter is no good for measuring high frequencies. But anyways, I cant believe the difference in sound quality Audyssey has made in my room. It sounds so much better now which I belive has to do with the 400-900hz gap I had. The separations between channels I hear now I think is the biggest difference. That and the flat low end.:T Now that I hear what Audyssey can do I cant image being without it.


----------



## tdamocles

I have 2 graphs here but the Audyssey equalized sub needs it's level lowered. Looks like Audyssey does a good job... The first is without the EQ and the second is with the EQ. This was performed by an Onkyo tx-sr805.


----------



## tbase1

where and how did you guys get the graph?


----------



## Sonnie

REW (Room EQ Wizard)


----------



## hifisponge

I had been looking for a thread like this to see how well Audyssey does in different systems, and there are only two posts with full-range graphs.

Sonnie - what happened to your follow-up graphs? And how do you feel about that 8dB dip in the treble relative to the midrange level? I would expect some roll-off in the treble, but not that much.


----------



## atledreier

I'm going to re-measure my system again today, I'll make sure to post some graphs in this thread.

Please remember that Audyssey is not 'traditional' EQ and thus it will not quield a flat frequency response like many are used to from manual EQ.

I have an old 'after' graph here. This is for a single position (sweetspot) after haphazardly placing my mains. I have much better results today.


----------



## hifisponge

Atledreler - 

Thanks for adding your graph. Are you using a calibrated mic? That top end still exhibits more roll of than I would expect based on what Audyssey says they are aiming for. I believe the target is flat from 20Hz to 4KHz, then -3dB @10KHz and -6dB @ 20KHz.

Here's what I was able to do with 10 bands of manual EQ (5 for the sub and 5 for the mains). The blue line is my preferred sub level.










Oh, and Audyssey is aiming for flat FR just like manual EQ, but the smoothness of the graph depends on how far apart your measurement points are.


----------



## atledreier

No, I use the Audyssey microphone, but I have checked it agains a calibrated MC8000, and it's fine except the very top end, where it falls off.

Your curve looks good for a single position EQ. I thinkI'd think it was too bright, but that is taste. I have solved many of my issues with proper speaker placement, and Audyssey is the final touch that just make it so much better. I have a well damped room, and Audyssey really bring the subs and mains together, and smooth for most of my listening space. I am not at all concerned that Audyssey can't give me a ruler flat curve for a single position, since it sounds so much better over a wider area. 
I do prefer a linear bottom end though. I used to have a house-ish curve like you prefer, but found it too 'slow' for my taste. I like the agility of a linear curve. I am currently getting linear response down to about 13Hz at reference SPL, and I noone has ever complained of lack of bass. 

Have you considered Audyssey DynamicEQ? That will raise the sub level as your master volume is lowered, to maintain a perceived linear bass response. I find it too bass heavy for my taste, but you might like it.

Here's what Dynamic EQ does in my room, at Master Volume -27dB


----------



## hifisponge

Thanks much for posting the effects of Dynamic EQ. I'd been looking for that, as I thought a house curve may not be needed if Dynamic EQ accomplished the same thing when listening at lower than reference level, which I always do. So having linear bass response may be just fine if I engage Dynamic feature. That does look like a pretty aggressive lift to the bottom end though. Is there any way to adjust the level, other than lowering the sub level?

About the treble in my graph. It surprised me too that I would like it that flat above 4K, but it really doesn't sound too bright with the speakers I currently own and at the levels I listen to. With other speakers, I preferred the typical HF roll-off.

Do you have a "before" graph you can share?


----------



## atledreier

I don't have a 'before' graph right now, I'm at work. I will do a fresh set of measurements with and without Audyssey tonight.

The Dynamic EQ is pretty agressive, but then this is almost 30dB down from reference, so the lift is pretty severe.

I think the linear bass thing in my setup is a thing of preference, as is the HF rolloff, as I usually listen pretty close to, or at, reference level. I'm pretty sure I'd like a little more oomph and zhing if I were regularly at -30dB.

I'll make a set of measurements, including DynamicEQ for the surround channels just to see what's going on tonight. I also have the SVS AS-EQ1 in my system, and I am curious what that does compared to the raw response.


----------



## Sonnie

Those graphs of mine are pretty old and I no longer have that receiver. I have an Onkyo 906 now. I have not done a before and after with this particular receiver as of yet.

I have never been super impressed with the mid and high end equalization with Audyssey... and I surely cannot differentiate between the before and after for simply watching movies... nor even concerts for that matter. I do know it does pretty well in the sub range and this is mainly why I use it.

I will try to get some new graphs up, but my time is soooo limited these days. There just ain't enough time in the day to do all I have to do as it is.


----------



## hifisponge

Thanks Sonnie. I completely understand. I think we all could use more free time these days. I'm scaling my high-end system way back for that very reason. No real time to just sit down and listen.

I have to ask, do you use a calibrated mic for your measurements? If not, that could attribute to less than stellar looking HF measurements.

In a few weeks, when I get a Denon AVR, I'll post my REW graphs to help get this thread moving along again.


----------



## atledreier

I recently 'downgraded' as well. For me it was more of a lateral move towards movie only audio, really. Went from the excellent Dali Euphonia MS4 and CS4 frontstage to the Klipsch THX Ultra2 kit. For movies it's actually better, even though the entire set cost less than the cente channel alone in the Dali kit!

The thing that gets me, though, is that even though the Klipsch kit is 10dB more sensitive, they really want more juice than the Denon AVR 4308 is giving them. I never had that with the 88dB Dalis...

But we are digressing. I never got around to doing the measurements last night, life got in the way, as it often does.


----------



## hifisponge

Not to take this thread further off-topic, but are you saying that you used the 4308 to power the Dali's? And now, with the same AVR and more sensitive Klipsch speakers, you feel like they need more power? What gives you that impression? Is the resistance of the Klipsches particularly low? What do you hear?


----------



## atledreier

I hear the amplifier straining a little when playing very loud. I get the classical harsh amp begging for mercy sound. I think the speakers have a dip in the impedance somewhere that my AVR just don't handle vey well. That said, the Dalis are known for their amplifier-friendly construction, and the klipsch take no prisoners, so I guess it's just a matter of getting more power to them. I am getting an Emotiva XPA-5 to power the speakers, hopefully that helps. I sorta miss my NAD M25 at this point. With the dalis there was just no need for it, but the Klipsch kit needs the extra oomph, apparently.


----------



## hifisponge

Ahh, that makes sense for the most part. You would think that the high sensitivity would make up for the low impedance dip, but some things don't play out the way they do on paper.

The issue you're having is the reason I'm going with the AVR5308. Its a far cry from my Classe front-end, but better safe than sorry.


----------



## atledreier

Yeah, should be fine. i love the UI and functionality of the 4308, and power is best handled by a separate amp anyway. I am hoping to have a listen to the new Onkyo Pre, the 5507 soon, that is looking very tempting. It has XLR outputs so I can go balanced to the Emotiva amp too, which is a great benefit with the long stretches of signal cable. And it has Audyssey DSX, which could be interesting.


----------



## hifisponge

I don't listen at particularly high volumes, so the internal amps in the 5308 should be more than enough. The Denon 5800 that I owned prior to the Classe stack never let me down, even at high volumes. Good luck on the search for the amp / processor combo that makes your Klipsch speakers sing.


----------



## Moonfly

First Graph is pre Audyssey

Second Graph is post Audyssey

This is using Audyssey Multi EQ XT built into the Onkyo 875 AVR :T

I have recently acquired a BFD 2496 so I'm going to have a crack at that dip at some point.


----------



## hifisponge

The "after" looks much better. If you have the ability, it would be good to see the full frequency response.

And the general concensus on dealing with dips is to move the sub or the listening position, or both, rather than throwing a lot of amp power at it with a positive filter.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Actually, any equalizing requires more amplifier power. Even if you have only a single 10 dB peak, that’s what your overall sub level was based on. Cut the peak and you’ll find your sub is now not as loud as before. So, you increase its level to make up for the lost volume. _Voila,_ now you’re driving your sub harder than you were before – at all frequencies except for the one you cut...

If you were dealing only with a dip in response, assuming it wasn’t a null and could be equalized, you’d only be driving the amp harder at the frequency that’s boosted.

So there’s no free lunch. Any equalizing requires ample headroom going in. In Moonfly’s “After” graph we can see that overall sub level has been increased by several dB. That amounts to increased demand on the amplifier. Equalizing raised the lowest point of the dip from ~62 dB to ~67. So it may respond to additional equalization. Can’t hurt to try.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## hifisponge

Sound reasoning Wayne. I stand corrected. "Common wisdom" file updated. :nerd:


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

LOL - seems like I've spent half my life battling that "general consensus." Nice to have whittled it down one more notch. 

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## atledreier

Well, Wayne. That depends a bit on what he used to set the level with in the first place. If he usen an SPL meter, then yes. If he used a tool like REW or Audyssey, then the peak would be above the general level of the sub, and thus would 'save' headroom.

Not saying you are wrong, just saying there are other circumstances that need to be identified.


----------



## Moonfly

I love a good debate  (dont we really need a dedicated discussion thread?)

Right, both graphs are obviously produced with REW. Both are measured at the 75db reference level. The sub is in one of only 2 available positions in my room, and is in the better of the two. All the other available room positions would require a smaller sub,a dn have been tested but dont offer a better response. In short the place it is, is as good a spot as any in my room, and there are no better available. The space it is in is large enough to accommodate a decent sized sub, so Ive taken advantage of it with the DIY sub Ive built, and subsequently measured.

As noted, Audyssey seems to have boosted the output of the sub by about 6db-9db, then trimmed the peaks. Audyssey actually ping'd the sub 3 time for each sweep, which I understand is it testing the subs threshold. However, it wont boost much more than 9db anyway, and as the boost seems to be across the entire range I assumed its limited the amount of boost to what the lower end, or majority of the response needs. This to me means that while the dip (caused by the room, every sub Ive tested has this same dip) has been boosted, there is probably a bit more room to add a bit more with the BFD Ive recently acquired, beyond what Audyssey wants to.

All in all I'm happy with what Audyssey has done,the sound is very good, and every time I use it I get consistent and pleasing results. Nothing short of fantastic for a free feature, given the next cheapest auto eq solution is about £250 for me.

Currently my sub is back in bits as I want to get the cabinet finished. When I get it back together, I'll apply the BFD based on the above post Audyssey graph, then re-run Audyssey and see how it comes out. I doubt I'll be disappointed, but I'll update the build thread (see sig) when I finally get there.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

atledreier said:


> Well, Wayne. That depends a bit on what he used to set the level with in the first place. If he usen an SPL meter, then yes. If he used a tool like REW or Audyssey, then the peak would be above the general level of the sub, and thus would 'save' headroom.


Could you explain further? That doesn’t make much sense to me.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## atledreier

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Actually, any equalizing requires more amplifier power. *Even if you have only a single 10 dB peak, that’s what your overall sub level was based on.* Cut the peak and you’ll find your sub is now not as loud as before. So, you increase its level to make up for the lost volume. _Voila,_ now you’re driving your sub harder than you were before – at all frequencies except for the one you cut...




I have bolded the part I am talking about. I agree, IF you use an SPL meter and noise to set the levels. But if you use a calibrated microphone and REW, or Audyssey for that matter, the peak may be above the average level of the sub, and require ONLY a cut to be in line with the rest. In that case there is no additional headroom needen, you have 'saved' a little headroom. Am I making sense?


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

> the peak may be above the average level of the sub, and require ONLY a cut to be in line with the rest.


I don’t think anyone sets their sub level (before equalization) based on a response average. 

My premise has nothing to do with SPL meters, Audyssey, etc. It’s based on the assumption (right or wrong ) that if there is a peak in the room, then before adding equalization, people will have adjusted their sub level based on that “hot” frequency. If they had set the level based on the response _average_, they would ultimately perceive the sub to be too loud and turn it down. I don’t think anyone’s going to steadfastly endure an overpowering subwoofer just because “that’s what the measurement says is right.” :huh:

Consider this: Assuming there is a peak in the room – The peak is acoustically induced, so it is “free” gain. That translates to “free” headroom, since the peak means that the sub’s level has been set _lower_ than it would be otherwise. Eliminating the peak means that the “free” gain now has to be made up elsewhere. That means the “free” headroom will be lost. Make sense?

Basically, it’s all about the sub’s “before vs. after” gain setting. It doesn’t matter if you cut the peak electronically (via equalization) or acoustically (by relocating the sub). If "after" ultimately means the sub’s level is increased, then additional amplifier power is required.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Ricci

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> I don’t think anyone sets their sub level (before equalization) based on a response average.
> 
> My premise has nothing to do with SPL meters, Audyssey, etc. It’s based on the assumption (right or wrong ) that if there is a peak in the room, then before adding equalization, people will have adjusted their sub level based on that “hot” frequency. If they had set the level based on the response _average_, they would ultimately perceive the sub to be too loud and turn it down.
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


I agree. That's the way I perceive the issue. 

I always end up calibrating the sub to the mains about 3 or 4 times as the process of dialing things in takes place. The first one is rough and like you mentioned usually has the largest peak or 2 dominating the calibration level. After you get your placement/phase/ crossover to the mains dialed in more you may have significantly smoothed things already and then your sub is a bit low, so re calibrate. From there perhaps you add a second sub or even a couple and dial them in if you are using a multi sub approach (you should be) at which point you may need to recalibrate overall levels again. At that point you might be EQing any remaining peaks down and you guessed it...time to calibrate levels again. After all of that it's time for Audyssey to bat clean-up (which I have yet to use.)


----------



## laser188139

The following graphs were measured on a Denon AVR-989 running MultEQ XT with a calibrated mic. 

To make the level setting clearer, I am posting separate graphs of the sub & left and sub & right curves. In each graph, light green is Audyssey Off, blue is Audyssey Reference, and the red is Audyssey Flat. 1/3 octave smoothing was used in each full range graph. 

Left:








Right:








One can see where the Audyssey Reference curve introduces its "BBC dip" near 2kHz, and tails off above 10kHz. 

I should explain the unusual sub curve with Audyssey Off. I deliberately configured my Hsu VTF sub in its overdamped mode, only one port open but the high-pass-filter set to two ports open. I found that, after Audyssey equalization, this gave the flattest response in my room.  

The room is not treated, most of what dispersion there is comes from numerous bookcases. 

Bill


----------



## hifisponge

Bill - 

Thanks for keeping the thread alive. Those Audyssey curves are very respectable overall, and exceptional in the bass. All I would probably do it bump up the sub output by a few dB.

The difference in the high treble between your left and right speaker measurements is a bit odd though. Are your speakers set-up assemetrically? Or did the mic move bewteen readings?


----------



## laser188139

The sub output appears level when compared to a single front speaker. When I measure the two mains together with the sub, the curve looks like more typical Audyssey curves. The sub level then appears +3dB higher than the mains; I spent several weekends trying to understand the level difference. Since late 2008, Audyssey includes a DynEQ function that I leave on, except for REW measurements, and that gives a low end boost similar to a house curve, which may be what you were suggesting.

You have correctly identified the next major area of improvement. The speakers are reasonably symmetric to the axis from the TV, but the whole arrangment is offset in the room. The left front is near the corner, whereas the right front is mid wall. So the reflections are very different, with a fireplace on the left, but the wall on the right 8 feet away. Also, there is a couch on the right parallel to the right hand wall, and its far arm blocks some of the sound from the right speaker. I've already broached the idea of re-arranging the room with my wife, but it will take some convincing.

I did not move the mic between the measurements, but it is very difficult to measure from exactly the same point as was used for the Audyssey setup. Also, in my asymmetric environment, it is not surprising that Audyssey, evaluating 8 points around the bubble, calculated different filters for the two fronts. 

Thanks,
Bill


----------



## hifisponge

Hey Bill - 

I've got the same speaker placement constraints, with the front stage scrunched over to one side. I've been using manual PEQ for the past year based on an average of 4 mic readings. You may find that if you tighten up the radius of your mic positions, making sure to keep all of them between the speakers, you could get more consistency in the HF between the L/R.


----------



## laser188139

Tim, thanks for the suggestion. I may revisit where I define the Audyssey bubble.


----------



## Ricci

Moonfly said:


> Audyssey actually ping'd the sub 3 time for each sweep, which I understand is it testing the subs threshold. .


Is this what it is doing? I just ran Audyssey for the first time a few days ago and it swept each speaker 10 times for every measurement. They all seemed to be the same volume to me and not all that loud.


----------



## gperkins_1973

I have just re done my graphs again tonight and have used less filters and less cuts which in turn is giving me more between 30 and 80hz. The first is my graph after Audyssey and no EQ (no BFD) which I think Audyssey has done a good job. I don't have the graph prior to Audyssey as I didn't save my measurements but its pretty good all the same. The second is my Sub only with Audyssey and with the BFD filters applied. And the last is my sub and speakers with Audyssey and BFD.

To re cap:

1. Sub only with Audyssey and no BFD

2. Sub only with Audyssey and BFD

3. Sub and speakers with Audyssey and BFD. 

Sub crossover: 80hz Speakers: 80hz

I have also increased the sub trim level to +5 and reduced the EP4000 gain down to 24db (it was on max). I am running the sub to about 82db so slightly hot.


----------



## Moonfly

Ricci said:


> Is this what it is doing? I just ran Audyssey for the first time a few days ago and it swept each speaker 10 times for every measurement. They all seemed to be the same volume to me and not all that loud.


I'm sure somewhere I read that Audyssey does this for the sub channel (not sure on the speakers), and each time it pinged the sub it increased the gain. Looking at the before and after graphs of my sub, the low end had been boosted just so to give me a nice flat response, so I know it certainly pushed my sub more than any other I had owned previously.

An e-mail to Chris at Audyssey might be in order though as the easiest way to get it cleared up.


----------



## Ricci

Here is what I'm looking at currently with Audyssey. I will be tweaking this more and re-doing them soon but you can see the cutting and then overall level boost that Audyssey is making to the sub channel. My averaged response after Audyssey is looking good through the bass range, but I need to make some improvements to the main listening position still. 



Electrical response comparing Audyssey on and off. 6.5db boost.











Same as above. Electrical with Audyssey levels readjusted to show cuts.











Main position before Audyssey










After Audyssey












6 position average response before Audyssey











6 position average response after Audyssey.


----------



## bkspero

New owner of a Denon AVR1610. I used REW a few years ago to set up a home recording studio, and now I'm trying to set up my family room television and sound systems. I'm trying to run REW on a Windows 7 computer, and there are some issues, which I'm sure have been explored on the REW forum. I was able to get it to calibrate everything, and run normally (as far as I could tell). The results are attached.

The first graph shows triplicate runs of REW after Audyssey setup was run and Multi-Eq was on. I used 1/12 Octave smoothing to get rid of some of the jitter but keep the smaller peaks and valleys. I was not able to set the axes to exactly 15-200 Hz and 45-105 dB, but got close. All were run with a 75 db target level.

The second graph shows 2 runs with Multi Eq turned off. I was surprised by the small amount of difference other than the generally lower sound level. Also, unlike the graphs with Mulit Eq on, these don't replicate very well. Both graphs contain what seems to me to be a similar degree of peaks and valleys.

The third and last graph shows all of the data on one plot.

I would appreciate comments on the results, and on whether I am doing things improperly (as far as you can determine from my post).

Thanks in advance for the guidance.


----------



## laser188139

Ricci said:


> Is this what it is doing? I just ran Audyssey for the first time a few days ago and it swept each speaker 10 times for every measurement. They all seemed to be the same volume to me and not all that loud.


Josh, when I reran the Audyssey setup this weekend, it behaved identically to what you wrote. There were 10 whoops for each speaker. These are repeated at progressively louder volumes if the Audyssey mic does not hear the sound cleanly enough; that might be where the 3 comes in. 

Bill


----------



## Ricci

Thanks Bill. 

I was sort of hoping that Moonfly was right and that Audyssey was at least doing something to check the output capabilities, but it appears that is not the case. I could see real subwoofer overload problems with a lot of systems with the amount of low end boosting that Audyssey ends up doing in practice.


----------



## Moonfly

Ricci said:


> Thanks Bill.
> 
> I was sort of hoping that Moonfly was right and that Audyssey was at least doing something to check the output capabilities, but it appears that is not the case. I could see real subwoofer overload problems with a lot of systems with the amount of low end boosting that Audyssey ends up doing in practice.


I've just sent an e-mail to Chris Kyriakakis of Audyssey to get some clarification in this. Hopefully we'll get a definite answer back soon. I'll post up any info I get.


----------



## Moonfly

Moonfly said:


> I've just sent an e-mail to Chris Kyriakakis of Audyssey to get some clarification in this. Hopefully we'll get a definite answer back soon. I'll post up any info I get.





> Hi Dan,
> There is no headroom testing. If the sequence of 10 chirps is repeating louder then it means that the mic did not receive enough signal to noise ratio.
> What is the exact error message you are getting on the DIY sub?
> Best regards,
> Chris Kyriakakis
> CTO, Audyssey


That should clear that up. Not sure where I got the headroom testing thing from. Another eq device somewhere maybe.


----------



## laser188139

Ricci said:


> ... I could see real subwoofer overload problems with a lot of systems with the amount of low end boosting that Audyssey ends up doing in practice.


I understand the concern. +9dB of eq boost and then adding DynEQ boost to that at lower volume settings adds up. I was fortunate to choose a sub that offers some options on tuning and setting the subsonic filter, so after experimenting I found a good combination. 

I remember Chris writing once in the Audyssey thread that he was aware that the current algorithm could cause problems on some subs, and they were looking at what could be done in a future release.


----------



## Tufelhundin

Here are a couple of graphs I took from mine this morning, I may relocate my subs back to their normal postition but I figured since I had some time yesterday I would move em and see what happens.

Using SPL/UCA202, TX-NR1007, ASEQ-1, PBU x2



Full sweep, red is no audyssey and no ASEQ. Blue is with MultEQ-XT & ASEQ













Blue is no MultEQ-XT or ASEQ, Purple is MultEQ-XT only, Teal is MultEQ-XT & ASEQ


----------



## atledreier

Nice and smooth, but pretty hot? Looks like around 12dB up from the rest? 
Are you using DynamicEQ?


----------



## Tufelhundin

yes, I am. I just recieved the NR1007 about 2 weeks ago and this is my first amp with Audyssey so I really have no idea what I'm doing. I only set up 6 mic positions for the MultEQ and used the same six for the ASEQ. The graphs that say no audyssey are actually with the Dynamic Eq turned off, I ran sweeps with the THX volume on an off and really didnt see much of a difference at all.

Please excuse my typing for I have twin 2 year old girls and one of them managed to spill lemon aid on my keyboard and some of my keys stick mainly the shift button.


----------



## Tufelhundin

granted a little hot but I ran this one yesterday...I guess when its a bigger gap between db's it doesnt look as bad..Ha!


----------



## Sonnie

What I am seeing is Audyssey seems to do pretty well on the bass, but nothing special on the highs.

Thanks for all the graphs... I would like to see more... :T


----------



## Tufelhundin

Sonnie said:


> What I am seeing is Audyssey seems to do pretty well on the bass, but nothing special on the highs.
> 
> Thanks for all the graphs... I would like to see more... :T


I agree Sonnie, unless there is a way to disable MultEQ on the NR1007 other than going to:

1. Audio Adjust
2. Audyssey 
3. Dynamic EQ "off"

If there is something I am missing or not doing someone please fill me in for I would love to run another sweep.


----------



## laser188139

Tufelhundin said:


> Here are a couple of graphs I took from mine this morning, ...


What are you using for the microphone? A Radio Shack SPL meter?

Are these graphs from two fronts together with one sub?


----------



## Tufelhundin

laser188139 said:


> What are you using for the microphone? A Radio Shack SPL meter?
> 
> Are these graphs from two fronts together with one sub?


Yes, I'm using a Ratshack SPL. The graphs are coming from my right front and two subs.


----------



## laser188139

Tufelhundin said:


> Yes, I'm using a Ratshack SPL. The graphs are coming from my right front and two subs.


If you are using the Radio Shack meter, there is enough variation between meters at the treble end that the general advice is not to trust their results above 3kHz. 

As you may have noticed in my recent comment in another thread, where the two fronts add together you can see less of a gain, due to destructive interference, than you see from one channel to the sub alone. So this could explain some of the boost in the low end. I don't know how this applies in the presence of multiple subs, especially after the ASEQ1 equalization. 



Sonnie said:


> What I am seeing is Audyssey seems to do pretty well on the bass, but nothing special on the highs. ...


If you ignore everything above 3kHz, this makes Sonnie's observation moot. You just don't know what is happening up there. 



Tufelhundin said:


> ... Blue is no MultEQ-XT or ASEQ, Purple is MultEQ-XT only, Teal is MultEQ-XT & ASEQ ...


Your second graph shows a steady upward slope from right to left, both with Audyssey on and off. This makes me suspect this reflects mic variation and not real behavior of the sub. 

Bill


----------



## Tufelhundin

I guess if I want to see whats going on....I need a calibrated mic, huh? Well....I guess I can start pricing....

Thanks for input Bill


Semper Fi


----------



## Tufelhundin

My Xenox502 came in and now I'm waiting on my calibrated 8000 mic and I'm going to run the sweeps again as the subs were in the graphs above and post the outcome so the diff can be seen.


----------



## laser188139

As Audyssey builds its equalization based on the full set of measurement points around its bubble, I decided to look at the average of my measures. Compared to my measurements at the primary listening position, this explains some of Audyssey's optimization choices. Apparently the dip around 130Hz is a room effect across much of the bubble, as it appears after averaging, where some of the other deep dips disappeared in the averaging. 

The following graphs were measured at all 8 measurement points of Audyssey MultEQ XT, on a Denon AVR-989 with a calibrated microphone. I took a simple average, without any clever level equalization to adjust for differences in distance, as Audyssey might do. As before, I used 1/3 octave averaging as Sonnie did in the first post. The light green curve is Audyssey Off, blue is Audyssey On. 

Left only:








Right only:








Sub only:








Left+Right+Sub:








It is interesting that averaging the full range measures shows a greater difference between mains and sub than one sees looking at an individual point. Apparently in the main range the responses differ and average out eliminating the peaks. In the sub range, the responses show more correlation, keeping the full peak magnitudes.


----------



## Tufelhundin

Well, I finally got everything a Xenyx 502 & a calibrated ECM8000 and I was having some issues with making a decent graph and was in contact with Doug for almost 2 days....man. All I can say is "THANK YOU DOUG" for your time and effort and* Semper Fidelis Devil Dog!*

As I suspected and mentioned in the NR1007 owners thread over on AVS it may be operator error and it was for the most part. These graphs are not the greatest but I have something to work with for a month or so then everything is getting shipped off to Italy, and I get to go back to the land of vino, pasta, cheese and, stone/concrete walls and floors with no carpet....going to be fun for sure...got the Grammas in sitting ready to go and will probably be ordering some traps and such to help with all the reflective sound I'm going to have.

Having said all of that, Doug if you see this and still have the graphs I sent to you, there are two things I would like to point out first you will see that the huge rise I had at 400hz is almost gone and that was due to me pulling my mains out 6", second I had the wrong cal file in REW for the mic "my bad and I'm sorry". These graphs are with the left front and dual PBU's and an ASEQ and a NR1007. Like I say not the best but I'm very happy with the 11.5 - 200 graph.


----------



## Tufelhundin

laser188139 said:


> It is interesting that averaging the full range measures shows a greater difference between mains and sub than one sees looking at an individual point. Apparently in the main range the responses differ and average out eliminating the peaks. In the sub range, the responses show more correlation, keeping the full peak magnitudes.




Very interesting indeed, I have yet to check my speakers at full range, nor have I ran them together, as soon as I can get some time at home alone I plan to see how mine pan out as well.

Thanks for your graphs, I will surely use them as reference as to what I come out with.


----------



## Tufelhundin

Moved some stuff around alittle ...not much and ran a couple of sweeps. The first is a sweep with Dynamic EQ on and off, both fronts and dual subs.















Full sweep with Dynamic EQ on and off. 













and a sweep with 80-120 hz crossover.....to be honest the 80 to me actually sounds better.

















Is there a way to actually turn off Audyssey on the NR1007?


----------



## eugovector

Which color is which? The best traces, from top to bottom, look to be blue, blue, and yellow. Which are these?


----------



## Tufelhundin

eugovector said:


> Which color is which? The best traces, from top to bottom, look to be blue, blue, and yellow. Which are these?


Sorry bout that.

Gold = 120
Red = 100
Purple = 90
Blue = 80


I have the LPE/LPF is set to 120 but I have yet to see any difference in any sweep I have made reagaurdless of what setting I have set it on 80 - 120.


----------



## eugovector

Are all your other speakers set to "small"?


----------



## Tufelhundin

Yes they are. The graphs above are with both fronts and sub.





The graph here was with right speaker and subs, not much difference, a full sweep with three sub only sweeps with different crossovers.


----------



## eugovector

Well, the LFE shouldn't be affected by the crossover. The LFE is a separate channel directed to the sub and the sub alone. Now, info from the other 5 channels in the range affected by the crossover will also be sent to the sub if the speakers are set to small.

Have you played around with the phase on your sub, or the position of your sub/speakers? That could give you smoother response around the crossover frequency. Make sure that you turn Audyssey off, get it as smooth as you can, and then run the Audyssey cal.


----------



## Tufelhundin

eugovector said:


> Well, the LFE shouldn't be affected by the crossover. The LFE is a separate channel directed to the sub and the sub alone. Now, info from the other 5 channels in the range affected by the crossover will also be sent to the sub if the speakers are set to small.
> 
> Have you played around with the phase on your sub, or the position of your sub/speakers? That could give you smoother response around the crossover frequency. Make sure that you turn Audyssey off, get it as smooth as you can, and then run the Audyssey cal.




hate to sound like a moron, but how do turn off Audyssey on the Onkyo? I can turn Dyn EQ off,,,but Audyssey?

It seems no matter where I have placed the duals I get a dratic measurment around the xover. I'm using an ASEQ, I havent really moved the subs and run sweeps with just the subs to find the best place w/out Audyssey, for the ASEQ shows a before graph and it seems no matter where I can place my subs they seem to have a big dip. So as of now I just opted to go with the best "cosmetic wise", to place them and thats between both fronts.












I had them in slightly diff position and got even more extension but still had a dip....


----------



## laser188139

Tufelhundin said:


> ... Is there a way to actually turn off Audyssey on the NR1007?


Looking at the NR1007 manual, page 93, it appears under Equalizer settings you have a choice of Manual, Audyssey, or Off, and either Manual or Off should disable Audyssey. 

I'm not sure that turning Audyssey Off will do anything about the dip of which you complain. Your left only + sub and right only + sub curves look reasonably even between the sub range and the mains. With multiple subs, you have a lot of combinations to try to see which polarity on the phase yields the smoothest transition. 



Tufelhundin said:


> ... I have the LPE/LPF is set to 120 but I have yet to see any difference in any sweep I have made reagaurdless of what setting I have set it on 80 - 120.


REW is not going to show you any effect from changes in the LPF for LFE because it is driving one or two stereo channels; it is not driving the LFE channel.

Bill


----------



## Tufelhundin

Thanks Bill. I really just wanted to see what the response looked like with no Audyssey and then make sweeps with just the MultEQ and with the ASEQ to see the difference. One would think the ASEQ would be able to correct the phase issue between the two subs, hence one of the reasons I purchased it, I was going nuts just trying to get a decent graph prior to buying it.....come to think of it, I wasnt running REW at the time so, I was actually using an SPL with sine wave disc it was probably a lot of waisted time.

A side note: the graph above with the sub sweeps and the single right front/sub sweep was x-over at 100hz. Any graph made at 80 has a big dip it seems, no matter where I can place them. I may try messing with the phase of one of them...or both, if need be but I sure was thinking the ASEQ would have taken care of this.


----------



## laser188139

Tufelhundin said:


> ... the graph above with the sub sweeps and the single right front/sub sweep was x-over at 100hz. Any graph made at 80 has a big dip it seems, no matter where I can place them. ...


If that is what you are seeing, it may come from the mains and not the sub. Where my left front is positioned, near a corner, it has a sharp dip above 70Hz. If I set the crossover below this, the big dip is still present in the combined curve. If I set the crossover above this, the sub covers much of the dip. You may be seeing something like that, where the 80Hz dip is in the mains' response, and the sub crossover at 100Hz lets it be more responsible for this region. Or you may be able to move the mains farther from the wall, to reduce the frequency of their dip below the crossover frequency.

Bill


----------



## Tufelhundin

I think that may be the problem.

I went home during lunch and ran a couple of sweeps with subs and right speaker at 80hz

Green = ASEQ/MultEQ/DynamicEQ all on
Purple = DynEQ off
Red = ASEQ & DynEQ off
Blue = All off













I ran a sub only sweep they way they are in the picture above then turned the subs outboard, the left one faced the left wall and the right one actually faced down a hall. I ran sub only 200hz sweeps at 80hz x-over


No EQ in these sweeps.


Green = facing sitting postion as in pic above
Purple = facing out board












I really thought the purple was going to be sweet, after setting up the ASEQ with I ran a sweep with the right speaker it was horrible....so I faced them back to the front and moved my mains slightly and ran a sweep with both fronts at 80hz x-over on with out DynEQ and one with.

Purple = w/out DEQ
Gold = with DEQ













Didnt have time to run a full sweep with DynEQ on but here is a 200hz sweep with it on along with a full sweep with it off.


----------



## waldo563

Here is my REW graph with some manual EQ:









Now with Audyssey Dynamic EQ (all other parameters are identical):









And the two overlayed:









Audyssey in this case is MultEQ on an Onkyo TX-NR807
BFD Filters were applied to smooth the Manual EQ FR and were kept in place for the Audyssey FR graph.


----------



## waldo563

Adding unsmoothed FR graphs.

With Audyssey on:









Without Audyssey:









Onkyo TX-NR807


----------



## ryanenen

Hi,

When it was engaging Audyssey autosetup in onkyo 906, all channels were being calibrated. How to calibrate subwoofer channel only in Audyssey autosetup? It seems that the calibrated effect of other channels except subwoofer is not that good in my untreated room.

Thanks


----------



## hifisponge

With Audyssey, it is all or nothing I'm afraid. There is no option to EQ just the sub. I'm not up on the different Audyssey options on the Onkyo, but on the Denon units, you can select "Bypass L/R" which defeats the EQ for the L/R channels and corrects the Center and Surrounds to sound like the L/R channels, while also keeping the sub EQ. This is as close as you can get to what you are looking for.

What don't you like about the sound? Sometimes poor sounding results are the effect of improper measurement technique. Please describe how you took the measurements.


----------



## eugovector

Can't do sub only in the avr, you want the svs unit.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## laser188139

ryanenen said:


> ... It seems that the calibrated effect of other channels except subwoofer is not that good in my untreated room. ...


You may be seeing comb filtering between the front speakers giving you more variation in the joint measurement than either speaker has itself. I was confused by some of my Audyssey curves, until I began measuring the left and right channel separately. 

You can also try taking measurements across all the points you used during Audyssey setup to define the Audyssey bubble. 

Bill


----------



## ryanenen

hifisponge said:


> With Audyssey, it is all or nothing I'm afraid. There is no option to EQ just the sub. I'm not up on the different Audyssey options on the Onkyo, but on the Denon units, you can select "Bypass L/R" which defeats the EQ for the L/R channels and corrects the Center and Surrounds to sound like the L/R channels, while also keeping the sub EQ. This is as close as you can get to what you are looking for.
> 
> What don't you like about the sound? Sometimes poor sounding results are the effect of improper measurement technique. Please describe how you took the measurements.


I just follow the manuel to place the supplied mic at 3 listerning positions due to limited space. 

It sounds dull after calibration. I turn off the EQ and it sounds lively but the bass does not sound good.


----------



## hifisponge

Try redoing the Audyssey set-up, but this time instead of pointing the tip of the microphone straight up, tilt it slightly away from the front speakers. This may help restore the perceived high frequency loss.


----------



## Moonfly

ryanenen said:


> Hi,
> 
> When it was engaging Audyssey autosetup in onkyo 906, all channels were being calibrated. How to calibrate subwoofer channel only in Audyssey autosetup? It seems that the calibrated effect of other channels except subwoofer is not that good in my untreated room.
> 
> Thanks





hifisponge said:


> With Audyssey, it is all or nothing I'm afraid. There is no option to EQ just the sub. I'm not up on the different Audyssey options on the Onkyo, but on the Denon units, you can select "Bypass L/R" which defeats the EQ for the L/R channels and corrects the Center and Surrounds to sound like the L/R channels, while also keeping the sub EQ. This is as close as you can get to what you are looking for.
> 
> What don't you like about the sound? Sometimes poor sounding results are the effect of improper measurement technique. Please describe how you took the measurements.





eugovector said:


> Can't do sub only in the avr, you want the svs unit.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Cant you just unplug the speakers so the system only detects the sub woofer, thereby fooling it into only eq'ing the sub. I dont have surrounds so I know there is no issue on that front, but I suppose how it reacts to no fronts will make the difference. It costs nothing to try though.


----------



## recruit

Moonfly said:


> Cant you just unplug the speakers so the system only detects the sub woofer, thereby fooling it into only eq'ing the sub. I dont have surrounds so I know there is no issue on that front, but I suppose how it reacts to no fronts will make the difference. It costs nothing to try though.


Have you tried this Dan as it may work, but I think if it is in an AVR then it will just give you an error message and ask you to do it again?


----------



## Moonfly

Ive only ever tried it without the centre and surrounds, and I guess its normal to expect the same not to be true for the fronts, but you never know, the system may just report them as not connected and carry on regardless. I need to order a new Audyssey mic as I lost mine somehow in a house move, so I cant easily try it myself now.


----------



## ryanenen

hifisponge said:


> Try redoing the Audyssey set-up, but this time instead of pointing the tip of the microphone straight up, tilt it slightly away from the front speakers. This may help restore the perceived high frequency loss.


This may be a good suggestion. I will give it a try. Thanks.


----------



## ryanenen

Moonfly said:


> Cant you just unplug the speakers so the system only detects the sub woofer, thereby fooling it into only eq'ing the sub. I dont have surrounds so I know there is no issue on that front, but I suppose how it reacts to no fronts will make the difference. It costs nothing to try though.


Yeah, this may fooling the onkyo 906. I remember during Audyssey autosetup, when it did not detect any speakers, it will bypass that channels and reported there was no speaker connected at that channel.
This may work. I will give it a try. Thanks Dan.


----------



## eyecatcher127

Anyone have any graphs of Audyssey MultEQ whom have upgraded to MultEQ-XT? I'm looking to upgrade my AVR/processor and I want audyssey. I get a severe allison effect -20db around 270hz and i have a huge +20db peak at 39hz. I can manually eq some of it with my current equipment but it is just not cutting it. I know that there shouldnt be much difference for the sub between the two eq's but im curious about the surrounds. has anyone noticed an improvement in the sattelite resolution on their graphs or sonically? I'm trying to justify getting a unit with multeq-xt.


----------



## Moonfly

Have a read of this first :T


----------



## laser188139

*MultEQ v MultEQ XT*



eyecatcher127 said:


> Anyone have any graphs of Audyssey MultEQ whom have upgraded to MultEQ-XT? ...


I was reluctant to post these, as I took the measurements very early on, a year ago, when I was still learning how to get reasonably consistent measurements with REW, and before I bought a calibrated microphone. 









In this graph, the light green line is from the Denon AVR-989, with MultEQ XT, and the blue line is from the Denon AVR-790, with MultEQ. It was taken at only one measurement point, of both front speakers so comb filtering effects may be present, with a Radio Shack meter so the accuracy at the high end and the bottom of the sub range are suspect. With all these caveats, the graph does support the idea that MultEQ XT does do a little better job of evening out the peaks and reducing the variation above the 80Hz crossover. 

Bill


----------



## eyecatcher127

thanks, i'm very famliar with the specs, i've been following audyssey for years. I was looking for some real world info someone can give me some feedback on not marketing. Im looking for someone out there that has upgraded proccesors with the same speakers cause I'd like to see a full range graph comparing no eq with multeq to multeq-xt.


----------



## eyecatcher127

cool thanks bill. Its hard to say based on your results. I'd like to see some more. I've owned a pioneer with mccac and the radio shack meter. Back then I didnt' have a calibrated mic or rew then so no graphs. I now have the calibrated dayton mic with rew. They are a must have. I took some measurements and the cal mic and rew have allow me to do a better job manully equalizing my yamaha but I have some bad acoustics. I hope audyssey can fix me up. I know my system can sound better.


----------



## eyecatcher127

Here are my first full range graphs using Onkyo TX-NR3008 w/ Audyssey XT32, SVS SCS-01 mains, SBS-01 Surrounds, PB13-Ultra. Measured with cross specturm's calibrated EMM-6, 90 degree narrow band at the primary listening position.


----------



## Tufelhundin

Man....to my untrained eye that looks very impressive. What I found weird and have never noticed "at least not without going back and checking my own graphs" is how DynEQ effected the upper end of the spectrum. I knew it effected the lower end.


----------



## recruit

It is similar to what Dolby Volume does but the Dynamic EQ from Audyssey is not in the same league as what Dolby does, I heard the Auyssey version and was not too impressed, now the Dolby version impresses me every time I listen to it in there post processing, although I love what Audyssey does for EQ'ing of a subwoofer.

The output of the PB13 is impressive though and room gain at the lower end will nearly always come into play except in all but the largest of rooms.


----------



## laser188139

eyecatcher127 said:


> Here are my first full range graphs using Onkyo TX-NR3008 w/ Audyssey XT32, SVS SCS-01 mains, SBS-01 Surrounds, PB13-Ultra. ...


Thanks for the XT32 graphs; the improvement in the 100Hz-300Hz range is really visible, which is what one would expect with the new filter resolution.

Would you, by chance, be upgrading from an earlier Audyssey receiver, and able to provide a comparison of XT32 with an earlier version, all other things being equal?

Thanks,
Bill


----------



## eyecatcher127

Unfortunately no, I was using a Yamaha HTR-6260, prior to this unit. I've only had the tools for rew for about a year. I have some graphs of some manually tuning I performed. Its amazing how audyssey can do in what took me literally hours of tweaking with the manual eq on the yamaha, a rane pe17 and rew, in only a few minutes and get the response just as flat. The dynamic eq gives it a house curve almost identicle to what my ears liked with the exeption of the boost on the high end. I like what the dynamic eq does with the sub but, I think the high end is too flat with it, I like the highs slightly rolled.


----------



## eyecatcher127

This was about as flat as I was ever able to get it manually with the Yamaha. Audyssey as you can see emasculates me and my toys. I actually feel kind of good about what I was able to accomplish.


----------



## eyecatcher127

I adjusted my sub gain according to the audyssey calibration which i didn't do before. I checked my mic positioning also. This is my final result with 3 positions. I wish it could get rid of the 250hz suck out but I think that is just the allison effect of having the bookshelfs on stands.


----------



## JohnJSmith

Ok, here we go. Denon AVR-4311ci. This is straight off the Audyssey auto config after it had me turn my right sub down to equalize it with the left. I identified that as the source of a big null between 40 and 50 hz.

The first graph is Audyssey off vs on. It's kind of strange that it reverses the peaks and valleys in the low end. It makes a huge gain under 30 hz!









Next is Audyssey vs Audyssey Flat. It does indeed flatten the graph out a bit. There's a +3 dB jump at 2k hz with Flat. Bass is unaffected.









Here's what Dynamic EQ does. At this volume level, it's mostly just boosting low frequencies. Since DynEQ is supposed to make the system sound better at low volume, it might be a more dramatic difference at a lower overall level.









Last night I improved my bass response by turning the gain knob back up on my right sub and raising them both to 0 dB in the receiver (Audyssey had them at -8). Tonight I turned the right sub back up to 0 dB and turned the gain knob up a bit as well while leaving the left sub at -8.









There, now that looks better.  I'll have to do some listening to see if I prefer it this way or if I'll turn the left sub back up too.


----------



## zzoli

REW5
Audyssey microphone (uncalibrated)
Denon AVR-1909, MultEQ

Graph: w. MultEQ, w/o MultEQ, low level MultEQ + DynEQ, low level MultEQ only.

Speakers: inexpensive sw + satellite speaker.


----------



## Sailor_Ernie

Audussey XT32 / Denon AVR 4311ci / WinXP, Sound Blaster X-Fi

My first REW sweeps. I’m still learning about REW, Audussey and the 4311ci so I’ll apologize in advance if I have made any errors.
I’m using the RS 33-4050 as an SPL meter (for now)























I’m very happy with the sound even without Audussy, particulary the sound stage. Audussey definitely improves it.
I do have a couple of RealTrap tri-corners in place on the front wall and I’m just finishing off a couple of home built corner traps.
I’ll rerun Audussey and RAW after I get them in place.
I’m a bit concerned with the dip at 83.7 Hz , the peak centered around 6K and the rapid drop off above. The dip at 83.7 may be sub position related. I understand that the RS SPL isn’t very reliable above 3K.
I do have a couple of Bruel & Kjaer 4007 mic,s with factory calibration data, which I intend to try soon.


----------



## zheka

I am also started using REW recently. 
To my untrained eyes the dip around 80Hz may be an indication of sub being out of phase. that is assuming it is the crossover point.



Sailor_Ernie said:


> Audussey XT32 / Denon AVR 4311ci / WinXP, Sound Blaster X-Fi
> 
> My first REW sweeps. I’m still learning about REW, Audussey and the 4311ci so I’ll apologize in advance if I have made any errors.
> I’m using the RS 33-4050 as an SPL meter (for now)
> View attachment 34214
> 
> 
> View attachment 34215
> 
> 
> View attachment 34216
> 
> I’m very happy with the sound even without Audussy, particulary the sound stage. Audussey definitely improves it.
> I do have a couple of RealTrap tri-corners in place on the front wall and I’m just finishing off a couple of home built corner traps.
> I’ll rerun Audussey and RAW after I get them in place.
> I’m a bit concerned with the dip at 83.7 Hz , the peak centered around 6K and the rapid drop off above. The dip at 83.7 may be sub position related. I understand that the RS SPL isn’t very reliable above 3K.
> I do have a couple of Bruel & Kjaer 4007 mic,s with factory calibration data, which I intend to try soon.


----------



## zheka

eyecatcher127 said:


> Anyone have any graphs of Audyssey MultEQ whom have upgraded to MultEQ-XT? I'm looking to upgrade my AVR/processor and I want audyssey. I get a severe allison effect -20db around 270hz and i have a huge +20db peak at 39hz. I can manually eq some of it with my current equipment but it is just not cutting it. I know that there shouldnt be much difference for the sub between the two eq's but im curious about the surrounds. has anyone noticed an improvement in the sattelite resolution on their graphs or sonically? I'm trying to justify getting a unit with multeq-xt.


I have basic MultEQ vs XT32 if you are interested. only up to 400Hz though


----------



## mabuse04

Hi there

I am new here but find it very interesting that you measured with REW what Audyssey did. Well, this is my first post here and I actually registered to download REW bur I will show you the output of my Audyssey Pro measurement, whereas I don't know whether this is true what is shown or not. 
I will find out soon, when I have installed REW and checked the measurement.

This measurement was done with my screen in front of the LCR. Therefore the decrease of the curve in the high area.
I hope this works here, doing it the first time.:sweat:

Thank you for you understanding and greetings from Germany.

m


----------



## robbo266317

Welcome to HTS.
It looks like the response has been significantly improved. You must be happy with that result.

Cheers,
Bill.


----------



## mabuse04

Thank you and yes, it has improved dramatically, I would say. Currently I am very happy but it was some kind of a fight to convince Onkyo and Audyssey that there is something wrong with the Audyssey implementation in the Onkyo PR-SC5509 which equivalent is some Integra DTR 9.x or so in the US.

However, with the introduction of Audyssey Pro and the latest firmware update in March, they fixed it. Great job and I was happy. 
However, somehow these curves are too good to be true - don't you think so too? Therefore I downloaded REW 5 today and will check the Audyssey data. But I still have to wait a bit, because I found my built in sound card in my laptop is not good enough after calibrating it with REW. So I am waiting for a Tascam US 122 Mk II.
I will post the results here.

Cheers

m


----------



## Dent

Hi all,

Thought I would post my current results:

Denon 2112ci - Audyssey MultEQ XT
Mains - HTD Level 3 bookshelves circa 2001
Sub - SVS 20-39 PCi circa 2002

Left and Right Mains measured separately at the main seating position with a Galaxy CM-140 SPL meter using the generic calibration file from this site.

RED - Audyssey off
GREEN - Audyssey on
BLUE - Audyssey Flat on












PINK - Audyssey off
TURQUOISE - Audyssey on
GOLD - Audyssey Flat on


----------



## sfdoddsy

If anyone is interested in a competitive EQ system, this is Anthem's ARC on and off, via REW. It is set to EQ below 5K.


----------



## sfdoddsy

And here is YPAO (with different speakers and position).


----------



## Dvoracescu

Hello Everyone!
How did you get your results?
As far as I know Audyssey works only on HDMI inputs and REW with USB interface 
has analog audio outputs.
How do you connect your measurement systems?

Could you please help me with this?
I use REW to test room acoustic, but I would also like to 
check my Audyssey calibrations.

Thomas


----------



## atledreier

Audyssey works with any input as long as it's enabled in the processor.

My results (note the different axis, I don't have the actual measurement files handy at the moment):

Before:









After:


----------



## chrapladm

Dont want to start a new thread for this question. Does Audyssey change levels for the speakers so that when the volume is at 0 they are at reference?

I am wondering because after I used Multi EQ it changed my levels to -2db on L/R and -9.5db on my sub. Just wondering why it changed them to that level as opposed to another level that would still have the speakers balanced.


----------



## primetimeguy

chrapladm said:


> Dont want to start a new thread for this question. Does Audyssey change levels for the speakers so that when the volume is at 0 they are at reference?
> 
> I am wondering because after I used Multi EQ it changed my levels to -2db on L/R and -9.5db on my sub. Just wondering why it changed them to that level as opposed to another level that would still have the speakers balanced.


Yes


----------



## vann_d

I realize this thread is pretty much dead but my latest subwoofer measurements are below. Taken with REW and a UMIK-1 calibrated from CSL. MultiEQ XT seems to do a pretty good job. You can also see the effects of dynamic EQ at this SPL level. I have noticed that Audyssey applies gains and cuts and will also adjust the overall sub level. It also seems to increase THD significantly (as measured by REW). Maybe all eq does, not sure. Sounds great nonetheless!


----------



## Blaser

vann_d said:


> I realize this thread is pretty much dead but my latest subwoofer measurements are below. Taken with REW and a UMIK-1 calibrated from CSL. MultiEQ XT seems to do a pretty good job. You can also see the effects of dynamic EQ at this SPL level. I have noticed that Audyssey applies gains and cuts and will also adjust the overall sub level. It also seems to increase THD significantly (as measured by REW). Maybe all eq does, not sure. Sounds great nonetheless!


Amazing.


----------



## Ocean

Not sure if this is the place to post this. Im very new to the whole REW thing, just got my UMIK1 mic and set it up on a Macbook. I measured at the main listening position, but have no idea how good (read bad) the graph is that i ended up with. This is after running Audyssey on my Marantz SR6008. I have an SVS 12NSD in my living room, so there are no room treatments etc, its just a regular rectangular shaped room.








Any input/advice/comments would be greatly appreciated. Oh yeah this is my first post :wave:


----------



## omega6666

Still working on the 41 Hz suckout, but subs placement possibilities are limited, so it's phase, distance, volume settings and direction only :/. I like the sound though, which is kind of what matters. DynEQ is on, -10 dB reference level offset. Target settings with hard knee house curve and 1,5 dB/octave rolloff @ 1 kHz


----------



## bigdogaxis

Let me know how solve it. I have a 60Hz hole unless I open one of the double doors which moves the hole to 50Hz. Go figure


----------



## BeeMan458

Here's our current graph.

Two Rythmik FV15HPs attached to a Denon AVR4520CI using XT32/SubEQ HT room correction software. Each subwoofer is equipped with a PEQ that allows each sub to separately EQ a particular frequency or bandwidth. One subwoofer is placed directly behind the MLP and one is placed on the opposite wall across from the MLP.

..


----------



## BeeMan458

bigdogaxis said:


> Let me know how solve it. I have a 60Hz hole unless I open one of the double doors which moves the hole to 50Hz. Go figure


Usually it's caused by a two reflections (primary and secondary) running into each other. And usually, the offending wall is the one directly behind the MLP.

Where is the door located that changes your null from 60Hz to 50Hz and what happens when both doors are opened?


----------



## bigdogaxis

BeeMan458 said:


> Usually it's caused by a two reflections (primary and secondary) running into each other. And usually, the offending wall is the one directly behind the MLP. Where is the door located that changes your null from 60Hz to 50Hz and what happens when both doors are opened?


Offending wall is 10 ft behind MLP (see photos). Both doors open creates large nulls at 60Hz & 80Hz. I am holding off posting REW plots until I measure the Audyssey results.


----------



## BeeMan458

It looks like the receding wall angles on the double door area are what's causing your room fits. From your image, it's looks like you have an angle on the wall of the equipment rack and then at the door.

What happens when you place a Depth i below the equipment rack?


----------



## Bear123

Full range with subs obviously quite hot. I assume this looks pretty bad? Also 0-200 to show subs.


----------



## BeeMan458

That bass graph is looking sweet but what do you have happening in 1kHz to 6kHz range?


----------



## Bear123

BeeMan458 said:


> That bass graph is looking sweet but what do you have happening in 1kHz to 6kHz range?


Yeah I don't know. Probably a combination of lousy room and lousy speaker placement. I am going to take some more measurements when the new sub comes in. Speaker placement is not extremely flexible but I have 1 minor option. I might try a rug or something? I'll throw a big fuzzy blanket down to see what it does maybe. Also hoping the new sub with two opposed drivers might help my bass response a little more..fingers crossed.


----------

