# Audyssey MultEQ Discussion Thread



## Sonnie

This thread will be the discussion thread for Audyssey MultEQ and the graphs posted in the Audyssey Graphs thread.

Let's keep the graphs presented in that thread and the comments in this thread. 

Thanks!


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

*Re: Audyssey Graphs - Please post your results!*

 
Pretty impressive...

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## SierraMikeBravo

*Re: Audyssey Graphs - Please post your results!*

Sonnie,

Imagine what Pro could do for you now!:unbelievable::bigsmile:


----------



## Blaser

*Re: Audyssey Graphs - Please post your results!*

WOW! I am easily impressed with things that I don't own... I see some :spend: again and again in the future.

Just out of curiosity, why do you use 1/3 octave smoothing for subs? (yes, that's you Sonnie :wave, isn't it possible to hide some FR non-uniformity specially at LF?

Jerm, 
your LFR is what?.... perfect? :yes: drawn by hand? :unbelievable: You too Sonnie!! :bigsmile:


----------



## Sonnie

*Re: Audyssey Graphs - Please post your results!*

It really does a much better job in the low end range.

I think 1/3 octave smoothing is probably good enough for viewing the response. Most likely any anomalies at higher resolutions will be unnoticeable by most people. I cannot chisel that in stone, but it has always sounded reasonable to me. :dontknow:


----------



## SierraMikeBravo

*Re: Audyssey Graphs - Please post your results!*

The reason 1/3 octave is used initially is because that is the resolution of human hearing. Once you get a good idea of what the problems are in the 1/3 octave range, you can focus in on those areas that are problematic with a higher resolution to try and correct them.

Hasn't been much info on here regarding Audyssey Pro. If you think XT is impressive, you haven't seen anything yet. Pro blows XT out of the water! If anyone is looking for a receiver or pre/pro in the future, get one that is Audyssey Pro capable. The step above that is even more impressive...the Audyssey Sound EQ.


----------



## Blaser

*Re: Audyssey Graphs - Please post your results!*

That's still a very good FR Sonnie. I think it is a matter of "schools". A school will not apply smoothing for perfect accuracy, another will not bother assuming the effects of 1/3rd octave smoothing can be neglected without spoiling the listening experience.
IMO, both of them are acceptable, but I just belong to the first one.


----------



## Sonnie

*Re: Audyssey Graphs - Please post your results!*

I have not seen too many receivers with the Pro version thus far. I think Denon has one, but not sure of any others.

I may eventually get the Sound EQ if it drops in price. Even at dealer cost it is a bit much for me.


----------



## atledreier

*Re: Audyssey Graphs - Please post your results!*

Could any of you plot a waterfall with and without, and maybe even an impulse plot to see what audyssey does in the time domain.


----------



## eugovector

*Re: Audyssey Graphs - Please post your results!*

Jerm357, what sub(s) are you using?

Good for future posters to add as well.

Also, the Integra 8.8 has installer ready Audyssey Pro, though price is north of $2k.


----------



## Jerm357

*Re: Audyssey Graphs - Please post your results!*

My sub is a DIY SoundSplinter RL-P 15 in 8.5cf enclosure tuned to 15.5hz.


----------



## Bailman

*Re: Audyssey Graphs - Please post your results!*

Hello people,

I really appreciate the time taken to make and then post these graphs. I'd like to get a dialog going and I wish to say right now that I am not intending to be a pain. My understanding is Audyssey claims to flatten the response in the time domain to reduce ringing caused by other EQ's yet I have not yet seen a graph anywhere from a consumer, reviewer or the manufacturer that shows ringing to be reduced anywhere.

I looked at the much appreciated graphs from Sonnie and Jerm357 and noticed that the results were not as good as the OP think. Sonnie showed he did obtained good FR results in the main/sub integration and undoubtedly it would be heard as an improvement, but he also strangely suffered in the 2.5K and 6K-10K area after the implementation. Jerm357 posted graphs show a poor response in the 100-300Hz which could also be easily perceived as a improvement cutting those not so articulate frequencies. To me though it took a not so troubled area and trashed it. He also suffers in a failed 6K and up but I'm thinking he accidentally had the THX re-EQ feature on. 

Perhaps this is because of the receivers processing power is still very limited but Jerm357 has the XT version as do I which claims to have just that. Perhaps Audyssey as the manufacturers claim, really needs to be performed on a PC then have the calculations transfered to get optimal results. Yet again, I have not seen any graphs which show this to do what the manufacturer claims it can do. Anyway, since these overhangs cannot be removed by a parametric either,why give up a personalized FR in the low octaves when it isn't doing such a good job at the higher octaves? 

After seeing these posted graphs I immediately Googled for more and this is something that came up.
http://www.realtraps.com/art_audyssey.htm


I understand Kal has the Onkyo Prepro with the MultEQ XT capable of the Pro incorporation which he was going to obtain and review. What I do not know is what version was being used by his friend Ethan.

Ethan wrote:

"Recently several products have appeared claiming to do even more than EQ by using sophisticated DSP (Digital Signal Processing). They claim not only to flatten the frequency response, but also to reduce modal ringing and early reflections, and to do so successfully over the full range of audio frequencies for multiple seats in a room"


"Unfortunately, the popular audio press gushes uncritically over products like these, printing press releases as fact and never actually testing the validity of manufacturer claims. The appeal of a small electronic device that claims to replace large and visually imposing acoustic panels is undeniable. But wishful thinking does not make it so!"

"Even the vendors themselves offer no real proof that their products work as claimed. I emailed Audyssey on October 29, 2006, regarding the technical descriptions and graphs shown in THIS series of pages on their web site. I asked if they had any data to support their claims of reducing ringing, and I also asked for clarification about how the tests on their site had been performed. For example, how large the room is and how far the measuring microphone was from the walls. At the time of this writing, 3-1/2 months later, I have yet to receive a reply from Audyssey. "


"Audyssey claims to flatten the response and reduce ringing over an area large enough to encompass multiple seats, so I measured at three adjacent locations on Kal's couch. It turns out this was not necessary because the MultEQ was unable to reduce ringing even at the same place it was calibrated for. As you can see in Figure 1 at left, the main improvement is a 6 dB reduction of the lowest response peak around 35 Hz.

The graphs in Figures 1 and 2 show not only the raw low frequency response, but also the individual decay times for each peak frequency. This type of graph is called a waterfall plot, and the "mountains" come forward over time to display the decay times at each frequency. You can read a more complete explanation of waterfall plots and the ETF software I used..."


Now since there is no proof that Audyessy improves the decay times/ringing in the low end as they claim, why throw away the Behringers personalization capabilities for our subs? I had/have taken mine out of the equation BTW and I myself have noticed improvements but also immediately acknowledged sacrifices in the low end articulation and slam which the BFD could re incorporate. I am not so sold on the Audyssey implementation in our systems:huh:


----------



## Sonnie

*Re: Audyssey Graphs - Please post your results!*



Bailman said:


> I looked at the much appreciated graphs from Sonnie and Jerm357 and noticed that the results were not as good as the OP think. Sonnie showed he did obtained good FR results in the main/sub integration and undoubtedly it would be heard as an improvement, but he also strangely suffered in the 2.5K and 6K-10K area after the implementation.
> 
> Anyway, since these overhangs cannot be removed by a parametric either,why give up a personalized FR in the low octaves when it isn't doing such a good job at the higher octaves?
> 
> Now since there is no proof that Audyessy improves the decay times/ringing in the low end as they claim, why throw away the Behringers personalization capabilities for our subs? I had/have taken mine out of the equation BTW and I myself have noticed improvements but also immediately acknowledged sacrifices in the low end articulation and slam which the BFD could re incorporate. I am not so sold on the Audyssey implementation in our systems:huh:


Actually, the results were indeed as good as the OP thinks... as per my comments. I did not suffer in the 2.5KHz range, although it did not improve on it. It did hurt me a bit in that 6KHz range. As far as what it did above 12-13KHz... I can't hear that anyway.

I will be much quicker to hear the considerable improvement in the lower end than I will ever notice the damage done at 6KHz... particularly with movies, and probably so even with music. Overall I think the good outweighs the bad.

I would rather not even place the BFD in my system believing less in the chain would always potentially be better, plus the BFD cannot do what Audyssey has done for me in the lower end... as far as leveling my response because it cannot manage 10-20Hz like Audyssey does.

Obviously YMMV. :T

I will concede that this particular Audyssey did not do as well as an earlier, supposedly less powerful version did, in the middle to upper range. See this thread for those graphs.

I have not experimented much with my current Audyssey XT. It may be that I could somehow get it to work better, but I just haven't looked into it that close. At some point in time I will play around with it more and see what happens. I will also post some waterfall graphs, etc. I can't promise when though. Someone will probably beat me to it.


----------



## Jerm357

I have updated my graphs to show the current status of my system and Audyssey. Some how I posted some early graphs I took when I was working out a phase problem and using the wrong cable for REW when I first bought this receiver. In the new graphs I posted you can see that Audyssey has not "trashed" my 100-300hz response. It seems to remain quit flat and the peek and roll off around 5000hz I believe is caused by the inadequacies of the RadioShack SPL meter to measure high frequencies.(I realy need to get a better mic) Anyways, there is no doubt in my mind in my mind that Audyssey has incressed the sound quality in my system. The separations between all the channels I hear now is so awesome, I could not image being without it.


----------



## Bailman

Hello People,

Again TNX for the graphs. What I was trying to say in a very roundabout way :coocoo:was/is this:

I am not so happy with my Audyssey results after many attempts in various forms per manufacturers posted suggestions.

I have yet to discover any truth to Audyssey's claims of reducing ringing, overhang while improving decay times in our
listening rooms... the stated specific reason why using our PEQ's are so inferior.:explode:

Audyssey appears to need either a more powerful chip in our processors or a separate computer to properly do its
calculations to remove any problems in our listening room FR's.

Why remove the Behringer only because Audyssey is much easier to use?

NOTE: I am not anti-Audyssey. It is pointing us in the right direction.


Now to qualify myself without any graphs to back up what my ears tell me. I have driven a car with flat FR (+/- 3db) for 10 plus years with many hours in it and the Audyssey has done somethings that aren't correct to these knowing ears. It has taken away something lacking in HT to begin with, mid-bass punch. Audyssey also has removed much if not most of the sub articulation and lastly there's something not right in the midband and lower treble frequency's going on. My ears tell me its a improper midband cut and lower treble gain.


With the things above in mind, why not reincorporate the Behringer for a more personal taste thats still within a +/-3db range to...
a) bring back some of the lost sub articulation...
b) possibly offset the anomalies that have occurred in the midband and lower treble area caused by the final calculations/implementations?

This is following part of Audyssey's theory from what I have gathered in another forum which claims It also takes one area reading and applies a filter at another area to compensate for the original reading.

Lastly Sonnie a question for you. I think I remember you had a house curve and you mentioned you were 20db hot in the sub area. You appear to be one of if not the original REW Behringer people. How were you that hot with the use of REW and Behringer?


----------



## Sonnie

Bailman said:


> Lastly Sonnie a question for you. I think I remember you had a house curve and you mentioned you were 20db hot in the sub area. You appear to be one of if not the original REW Behringer people. How were you that hot with the use of REW and Behringer?


I really do not remember how I got this hot. Most likely it was because I had just got in the new receiver and the pair of PC-Ultra subs. I know I was fiddling with my sub levels. These graphs were also without the BFD in the loop. I may have initially set it up with the BFD and then after taking the BFD out, just not leveled my subs and mains before running some response measurements with and without Audyssey. I am really guessing though. :huh:


----------



## Guest

I would appreciate any thoughts you all might have on my graphs.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...raphs-please-post-your-results.html#post97798

Why am I getting such a peak at 5k? Then such fall-off towards 20k? Is that at all normal, or should I be striving towards flat-ness?

Why did Audyssey mix my sub channel about 10db too hot? Isn't it trying for a flat response? 

-Bob


----------



## Blaser

RS SPL meter is inaccurate at 5K and above, so you can't really know.


----------



## Guest

Aww shucks, I'm only now finding that out. The extensive use of the RS meter in the instructions for REW made me feel pretty safe about using it. I never saw any warning that my measurements weren't valid.

I should have read more!


----------



## Blaser

RS meter is fine for subwoofer measurements for sure though.


----------



## Bailman

Torsion said:


> I would appreciate any thoughts you all might have on my graphs.
> 
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...raphs-please-post-your-results.html#post97798
> 
> Why am I getting such a peak at 5k? Then such fall-off towards 20k? Is that at all normal, or should I be striving towards flat-ness?
> 
> Why did Audyssey mix my sub channel about 10db too hot? Isn't it trying for a flat response?
> 
> -Bob


How does it sound to you?

Honestly I am not at all impressed with Audyssey XT. I have lost all this->>>:hsd:


----------



## Bailman

blaser said:


> RS SPL meter is inaccurate at 5K and above, so you can't really know.


I thought the opposite was more true and with correction values you get a fairly accurate picture. My ears tell me that A XT has done something similar in my environment as it has with Torsions in the lower treble. I guess it be OK for me if it hadn't taken all the low end (80HZ- 40HZ) away. I may just need to rearrange my room again...less for cosmetics and all for performance.:whistling:


----------



## Blaser

Bailman said:


> I thought the opposite was more true and with correction values you get a fairly accurate picture.


Fairly accurate picture below 500 Hz. But I wouldn't do any measurements for fullrange speakers with an RS Meter. The Behringer ECM 8000 mic would be my choice.


----------



## Jerm357

Torsion said:


> I would appreciate any thoughts you all might have on my graphs.
> 
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...raphs-please-post-your-results.html#post97798
> 
> Why am I getting such a peak at 5k? Then such fall-off towards 20k? Is that at all normal, or should I be striving towards flat-ness?
> 
> Why did Audyssey mix my sub channel about 10db too hot? Isn't it trying for a flat response?
> 
> -Bob


My graphs show the same thing at 5k from using the RS meter for full range so I would'int blame the system, blame the RS mic. About the sub, after you run Audyssey where does it set the sub trim. If its set at -15db then your gain on your subwoofer itself needs to be turned down then run Audyssey again.


----------



## Guest

I did a few A/B tests between the Audyssey tune and my "Manual" settings of the Onkyo's internal banded EQ.

They both sounded different... but it was hard for me to decide exactly which sounded better. In the end I chose to leave Audyssey turned on.


----------



## Ayreonaut

Hey Folks,

I bought a Denon AVR-888 a few months ago. Being too lazy to drag the PC into the living room to do measurements _yet again_, I have not measured the effects of Audyssey MultEQ in my system, but I have formed an opinion. I like it. I like it a lot.

I set my BFD to tame only the peaks in an average response of my listening positions. I added a house curve. It sounded good. Then I bypassed the BFD and let Audyssey MultEQ do its thing. It sounded decent, but maybe not as good as my BFD effort alone. Finally, I adjusted my BFD to tame the peaks, but left a flat response, and I let Audyssey do its thing on top of that. The combination of the two sounds terrific. I highly recommend this approach, if you have both a BFD and Audyssey. 

It seems that Audyssey MultEQ can use a little help. It's performance is fair, if you throw big room problems at it. But if you use REW and a BFD to deal with the big problems first, Audyssey MultEQ will put the finishing touches on it and the end result is beautiful. Standing on the shoulders of giants, so to speak.

Has anyone else experienced this?


----------



## eugovector

What would everyone's opinion be, BFD first and then let Audyssey do it's thing, or Audyssey first and then let BFD get what Audyssey doesn't?


----------



## SierraMikeBravo

Personally, if you use Audyssey, I wouldn't use the BFD on top of it. Basically, you are using processing on top of processing. If you have the ability to upgrade to Audyssey Pro, I would certainly do that since the increased resolution in the lower frequencies is much greater..thereby essentially eliminating the need for the BFD. If you have a seperates system, the Audyssey Sound EQ is the best way to go as it uses the full DSP. However, if you are targeting the lower frequencies only, SVS' new sub equlizing system utilizes Audyssey XT, and it uses much, if not all, the DSP, similar to the Sound EQ except it is just for the lower frequencies. Now, this is all dependent on seating and speaker placement. I always say that Audyssey helps you as much as you help it. If you find that you still peaks occurring in the lower frequencies, I would first look into placement of seating and sub. If that doesn't deal with it, look into conventional means, such as room treatments, to deal with the stragglers.


----------



## Ayreonaut

SierraMikeBravo said:


> Basically, you are using processing on top of processing.


That is absolutely true. 
That's the concern that prompted me to try Audyssey MultEQ without the BFD.

But the proof is in the pudding. 
Prudent EQ plus Audyssey sounds much better in my system.
So if you already have a BFD and you get Audyssey, I recommend:
Use REW to measure sub response at multiple seating locations.
Average the responses and implement EQ to attenuate the major peaks. No house curve.
Set up Audyssey MultEQ.
If your receiver calls your mains "large", change them to "small" and crossover at 80 Hz.
If you want a house curve, add it now.
Don't knock it till you try it!

As Shawn says, if you want better results than Audyssey MultEQ can deliver, you can always step up to the more advanced versions of MultEQ XT and Pro. But that is an expensive proposition. The BFD is still the best $99 tweak I know of.


----------



## HionHiFi

Ayreonaut said:


> That is absolutely true.
> That's the concern that prompted me to try Audyssey MultEQ without the BFD.
> 
> But the proof is in the pudding.
> Prudent EQ plus Audyssey sounds much better in my system.
> So if you already have a BFD and you get Audyssey, I recommend:
> Use REW to measure sub response at multiple seating locations.
> Average the responses and implement EQ to attenuate the major peaks. No house curve.
> Set up Audyssey MultEQ.
> If your receiver calls your mains "large", change them to "small" and crossover at 80 Hz.
> If you want a house curve, add it now.
> Don't knock it till you try it!


Good info. 



Ayreonaut said:


> As Shawn says, if you want better results than Audyssey MultEQ can deliver, you can always step up to the more advanced versions of MultEQ XT and Pro. But that is an expensive proposition...


I have a Denon 3808ci, which has the ability to utilize the Audyssey Pro Installer Kit. I've been reading for awhile about the BFD, and would like to implement one in my system. The problem is which one to buy and...: 


Feedback Destroyer Pro FBQ2496
Pros: Supported by REW, MIDI Control, and the BFD guide, available and shipped for ~$150, no chip issues.​Cons: One preset​
Feedback Destroyer Pro DSP1124P. 
Pros: Great reputation,Multiple presets​Cons: Chip surgery to get MIDI, Discontinued​

I like the MIDI option with the FBQ2496, but also the multiple presets with the DSP1124P. BUT, because I'd be using it in conjunction with the Audyssey system are multiple presets even needed when using the BFD the way Ayreonaut is talking about? :scratchhead:




Ayreonaut said:


> The BFD is still the best $99 tweak I know of.


Isn't a proper microphone, external sound card, and REW necessary for BFD to work the way your talking about? All these things cost money. Wouldn't their cost be approaching what the Audyssey installer costs which I believe is $325. 

I'm trying to figure out the best way to get the best sound out of my room with the least amount of money spent, and with a moderately integrated solution. If possible.


----------



## SierraMikeBravo

If you want the best system, I would go with Audyssey Pro. It depends on the installers price. Keep in mind that $150 goes stright to Audyssey and is not pocketed by the installer. Here are the pluses and minus'

1. Audyssey Pro uses a small microphone grazing area (smaller the ECM 8000). This is actually essential to get truely accurate results when analyzing the room. The smaller the grazing area the better. This is why the RS meter is absolutely useless through the entire audio spectrum. 

2. The microphone used in the installation kit has a calibration file specifically for that microphone. This delivers accurate results for the program to analyze.

3. Audyssey XT uses microphones (supplied with unit) that are mass calibrated, and thus may be accurate or not entirely. You just don't know. 

4. If you go the EMC8000 route, it will cost you some change for the equipment. Depending on the sound card you purchase. Decent ones cost around $150-200. The microphone is around $60, and the cable is around $25 or so...not including mic stand. Now you are looking at around $250-350 for a microphone setup. Plus the additional $99 for the feedback destroyer. Liberally, you've spent around $500, and probably won't get as good of a result as you would with Audyssey Pro with an experienced installer. In addition, you have to know what you are looking at when you take readings. Some of the peaks and nulls may be associated with room modes or SBIR, or even background noise. You need to able to recognize what is what to deal with the problem. 

I will tell you, as a person who uses Pro, the differences I heard are night and day between Audyssey Pro and Audyssey XT. Keep in mind, your room layout is absolutely essential to get the best results, and the use of conventional treaments may still be needed. This is where Audyssey Pro benefits as well, since it shows you the before and after graphs for each channel in the report you receive from your installer. An experienced Audyssey installer would also be ideally HAA certified, so he/she can recognize and hear additional steps that may be needed. 

Audyssey is not the magic bullet. It will NOT fix ALL problems. Proper uderstanding of room acoustics is still an essential part of an incredible listening experience. However, in my opinion, upgrading to Audyssey Pro is the best investment you can make at a reasonable price. After using it, I am a believer!


----------



## Ayreonaut

If you have Audyssey Pro capability, by all means, take full advantage of it. The installers kit costs $325, which leaves you to do the work yourself. I'm not sure what it costs to have it professionally done. (But I would rather have the equipment and tweak it myself to my heart's content.)


----------



## eugovector

Ayreonaut said:


> If you have Audyssey Pro capability, by all means, take full advantage of it. The installers kit costs $325, which leaves you to do the work yourself. I'm not sure what it costs to have it professionally done. (But I would rather have the equipment and tweak it myself to my heart's content.)


Now, I've heard that you also have to attend a seminar on how to use it. Is that true?


----------



## Ayreonaut

I think that is only true if you want to become an Audyssey certified installer.


----------



## SierraMikeBravo

Incorrect,

You are allowed to purchase the equipment ONLY if there is not a certified installer near you. Only about 20 units have actually been sold to "customers". Audyssey will first check to see if there is an installer near you, if there is not, then you may be allowed to purchase the equipment. Yes, it does cost $325 plus an additional $150 for the licensing fee plus $25 to ship it. Therefore, it will cost you $500 if you are allowed to purchase it. If there is an installer near you, you will not be allowed to purchase the installer kit. However, it comes down to this as well. Do you want someone who knows what they are doing, or do you want to mess with upgrades to your DSP blindly. Again, Audyssey works best if you have a proper room setup, and a good installer will make the necessary changes to optimize the Audyssey setup. Sometimes, it is just worth paying a knowledgeable person to do it right the first time.


----------



## Ayreonaut

Wow, thanks for the info. I guess I got the wrong impression from the Audioholics review. :coocoo:


SierraMikeBravo said:


> Sometimes, it is just worth paying a knowledgeable person to do it right the first time.


Sure. But I would be loathe to pay for it a second time. Or a third. 
Every time you make a change to your audio chain you would be looking at paying that fee again. :gah:


----------



## eugovector

Ayreonaut said:


> But I would be loathe to pay for it a second time. Or a third.
> Every time you make a change to your audio chain you would be looking at paying that fee again. :gah:


Exactly my concern. I don't want to add a $300 Audyssey fee (is it $300) every time I get new speakers, hand wall treatments, or move my couch.


----------



## SierraMikeBravo

Hey guys,

That is why I suggested an audio pro to begin with. Once the room is properly setup, you shouldn't have to change anything. It isn't always the case, but constantly "upgrading" is often a sign that the room isn't in proper alignment. Audyssey should be used as the "finishing touch" on timing alignment and problem frequencies inherent to the room's dimensions. Speaker and seating placement should be used to deal with major modal problems from the beginning. Once you have the "best" arrangement your room design will allow, then you let Audyssey work the rest of the existing problems that you were unable to fix by design. This is basically the principle that ALL equalizers should be incorporated into a system. There are other things that could also be done to improve sound, but constantly upgrading speakers shouldn't be one of them unless the speakers were of poor design to begin with. That is another reason to hire a seasoned vet as they will be able to test your speakers for poor response prior to audyssey install. All you really should be doing is sitting back and enjoy the show!


----------



## HionHiFi

eugovector said:


> Exactly my concern. I don't want to add a $300 Audyssey fee (is it $300) every time I get new speakers, hand wall treatments, or move my couch.


So each time I change something in my system, I have to pay Audessey a fee to use software, and hardware I've already purchased once?


----------



## eugovector

SierraMikeBravo said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> That is why I suggested an audio pro to begin with. Once the room is properly setup, you shouldn't have to change anything.



I think this assumes a lot. It assumes that you will have the time and money to do everything you want to do in the first place, and that your tastes/desires will never change. In my opinion, this happens about 1% of the time. The rest of us start with the speakers that we can afford, and something not completely over the top like a $1500 Integra Pre/Pro. We want the best sound we are currently capable of, so we pay for the Audyssey calibration.

Then we get money for a front projection system which increases the screen size tremendously. Move couch, add second row, more Audyssey.

Econ stimulus check comes in...new surround speakers, more Audyssey.

Scratch off nets $5k...build a bar in the back, more Audyssey.

Next job pays double next state over, have to move, more Audyssey.

7.1 material become a reality, add rear channels, more Audyssey.

Go to conference, hear JBL Everests, sell kidney, more Audyssey.

If you have the kind of money to do things right the first time, including hiring a consultant, then you don't need to worry. You can afford multiple Audyssey cals. For the rest of us, we'll be changing and upgrading as money permits, and money will go a lot further if we don't have to pay $300 each time for a cal.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

intelonetwo said:


> So each time I change something in my system, I have to pay Audessey a fee to use software, and hardware I've already purchased once?


No. First, Audyssey gets a one-time $150 fee for the license to use Pro with a particular device. Generally, if you have an installer do the work, this is wrapped in his fees but he hangs on to the license. 

Second, any subsequent work done by the installer due to changes in the system/room are based on a negotiation between you and the installer. Since the license has already been bought, the cost of this work should be less.

Kal


----------



## HionHiFi

Kal Rubinson said:


> Second, any subsequent work done by the installer due to changes in the system/room are based on a negotiation between you and the installer. Since the license has already been bought, the cost of this work should be less.
> 
> Kal


What if I bought the installer kit from the dealer? I would then own the license and could make the modifications to my system til my hearts content. :R


----------



## eugovector

intelonetwo said:


> What if I bought the installer kit from the dealer? I would then own the license and could make the modifications to my system til my hearts content. :R


That's what I'm saying should be able to be done. Anyone know if Audyssey is on-board with this approach?


----------



## HionHiFi

eugovector said:


> That's what I'm saying should be able to be done. Anyone know if Audyssey is on-board with this approach?


As I understand it from posts around the internet and here. If you have an installer in your area, Audyssey will not sell you an installer kit. 

The only way you could obtain an installer kit with license would be if you found a dealer of Audyssey receivers, etc, etc, and ordered the kit from them. They may or may not let you have the license along with the kit. Hoping to pull some money from you at a later point in life for setup of the system.


----------



## SierraMikeBravo

Well, I am sure you could possibly work that with the installer...however, I doubt it as that is lost revenue to the installer. The dealer/installer also has to be a dealer/installer for Audyssey. If you are that worried about "spending" the money each time you want to "upgrade" your system, then I suggest purchasing a Sencore SP295, multiplexer and digital audio generator in order to obtain the same results anytime you wish!  Of course, that is only a measily $5000+ of your money. I am kidding somewhat, but seriosuly, that is what it comes close to in order to obtain the same or better results that Audyssey Pro or the Sound EQ. Anytime you upgraded your system anyway, you are going to have to go through the pain of reanalyzing the room. And honestly, $1500 for a pre/pro now days is one **** of a deal considering what the Onkyo/Integra does for you. Most pre/pro easily exceed the $2000 mark and don't give you half of what the Integra/Onkyo does.

As far as Audyssey being on board with the approach, I don't think they care. That is something between you and the dealer/installer. If the installer wants to sell you a kit where he makes no money in the deal and you bothering him on a weekly basis asking how to do this, then by all means, approach him with it. If you are willing to pay more than what the cost of the kit is plus shipping, then he/she might agree. You never know.


----------



## HionHiFi

As I stated earlier, I already have a receiver which is Audyssey pro capable. No problem there. 

Not doubting the merits, or proper setup, and giving so call installers a job. However, I'm versed enough in HT to do the job myself. I'd like control of my options especially after I've paid money for it. Seems weird to me that in HT you have to pay money for something then every time you want to use it you have to pay again.


----------



## SierraMikeBravo

Not really. I don't mean to keep arguing for installers, but if you had, say an acoustics person do the design and analysis for you in the beginning (without Audyssey), you would have to have them do it again even if you moved the couch for example. It works the same in most businesses. If someone built something for you, and you decided to change it in 6 months, would you expect someone to change it for free? Or, if you decided to built it yourself and wanted to change it, would you expect to get additional materials for free? You have to look at it this way, no one has forced you to change anything. You have made the choice to upgrade. Audyssey worked before you decided to change something. Just factor in the Audyssey change as part of the upgrade. We are not really talking that much considering how much you are likely spending on the upgrade. 

I have found the more I think I know, the more I find out I don't know...especially when it comes to acoustics. There are so many variables that affect sound. I now usually say that you don't need a degree in rocket science in order to understand acoustics, but it helps.

Personally, the only thing I would seriously suggest for a rerun of the Audyssey Pro program is if you change out your speakers. Amplifiers maybe if you are significantly increasing the wattage.


----------



## eugovector

I don' have anything against installers, I think they are great people who have a great job. However, if I was told that I couldn't buy a hammer unless I was a carpenter, or a dozen eggs unless I was a baker, I'd be upset.

If there's one thing I've learned from the internet, it's that people want to try new things, to learn, and they'll find a way to do it without your help if they need to.

I applaud Audyssey for supporting their installers and standing by them for keeping their system exclusive, but when I get my Integra, I want to set it myself if for nothing else than the experience and learning. If that means I have to become an installer, I will. If that means that I wait for someone to document how I take a third party mic, software, and documentation and do it myself, I'll do that too. I bought the hardware, I'll buy the license, and I'll do what I want with it.

I'm inthe process of arranging an interview with some folks from Audyssey. If/when that materializes, I'll explore this situation thoroughly with them.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

SierraMikeBravo said:


> I have found the more I think I know, the more I find out I don't know...especially when it comes to acoustics. There are so many variables that affect sound. I now usually say that you don't need a degree in rocket science in order to understand acoustics, but it helps.


Ain't that the truth! There's always more to know.



> Personally, the only thing I would seriously suggest for a rerun of the Audyssey Pro program is if you change out your speakers. Amplifiers maybe if you are significantly increasing the wattage.


Well, you would rerun it if you moved the speakers or listening position, if you replaced substantial furniture (couches, etc.), changed acoustic treatments (or drapes)....... If I swapped amps, I 'd only worry about the levels and then mostly out of concern for sensitivity, not power.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

intelonetwo said:


> As I understand it from posts around the internet and here. If you have an installer in your area, Audyssey will not sell you an installer kit.


Good thing I got mine before there were ANY Audyssey installers anywhere. :neener:

Kal


----------



## HionHiFi

eugovector said:


> ...If that means that I wait for someone to document how I take a third party mic, software, and documentation and do it myself, I'll do that too. I bought the hardware, I'll buy the license, and I'll do what I want with it.
> 
> I'm inthe process of arranging an interview with some folks from Audyssey. If/when that materializes, I'll explore this situation thoroughly with them.


This is the same state of mind I'm in. I agree with eugovector on this one. I'm in the process of obtaining a Audyessy Installer Kit myself.


----------



## Bailman

I'd load up on room treatments before I sprung for Audyssey Pro and its accompanying fees.

Has anybody actually measured an improvement in decay time? 

Are there graphs?:bigsmile:


----------



## SierraMikeBravo

I believe you can only change that by changing the absorptive properties of the room or the dimensions. I think what you are referring to is direct timing (the time it takes for sound to reach your ears directly from all sources) which is a function of distance. If it is not in sync, the waves will be out of timing causing a collapse in the immersive audio experience. The problem is, measuring with a tape measure doesn't always work. The DSP can induce a lag in time which Audyssey listens for and corrects.


----------



## HionHiFi

I think what Bailman is suggesting is that the room be physically setup properly before using any software based program. This way the software has a more acoustically sound room to work with. I could be wrong.


----------



## HionHiFi

Bailman said:


> I'd load up on room treatments before I sprung for Audyssey Pro and its accompanying fees.
> 
> Has anybody actually measured an improvement in decay time?
> 
> Are there graphs?:bigsmile:


I have yet to measure my room, other than with Audyessy MultiEQ XT, which is on my receiver. 

Treating the room effectively first with room treatments is the first step in most any sound reproduction situation. Or it should be. 

I'm still trying to figure if using both the BFD, along with the Audyessy will yield benefits.


----------



## SierraMikeBravo

Not quite. You first need to know what you are treating for. Slapping up room treatments without knowing is not a good idea. That is not to say that some treatment isn't done right off the bat. However, before you do "tuning" treaments, you need to deal with timing first and foremost...which Audyssey does. Personally, I would treat the room afterwards if needed. Treatment is not cheap by any means either if you want it to look nice. With my room, some treatment was necessary, but not for tuning per say the frequency response. I didn't need bass trapping at all, and I used a minimum of absorption. It's really all about design and placement folks. Audyssey and treatment only provide the polish so to speak. This is why I say, you don't need to keep upgrading if the room was done right from the beginning. But, I will say this, timing is everything as well, and my room really does sound great once I polished it with Pro. I still get shivers up my spine everytime I listen to my system. It really is quite magical. But nothing is greater than the whole. Every part of the room integrates well, and each aspect played a significant role in the final outcome.


----------



## HionHiFi

SierraMikeBravo said:


> Not quite. You first need to know what you are treating for. Slapping up room treatments without knowing is not a good idea. That is not to say that some treatment isn't done right off the bat. However, before you do "tuning" treaments, you need to deal with timing first and foremost...which Audyssey does. Personally, I would treat the room afterwards if needed. Treatment is not cheap by any means either if you want it to look nice. With my room, some treatment was necessary, but not for tuning per say the frequency response. I didn't need bass trapping at all, and I used a minimum of absorption. It's really all about design and placement folks. Audyssey and treatment only provide the polish so to speak. This is why I say, you don't need to keep upgrading if the room was done right from the beginning. But, I will say this, timing is everything as well, and my room really does sound great once I polished it with Pro. I still get shivers up my spine everytime I listen to my system. It really is quite magical. But nothing is greater than the whole. Every part of the room integrates well, and each aspect played a significant role in the final outcome.


Certainly, I do not believe anyone here believes you should throw up room treatments indiscriminately. Nor has anyone here suggested that path be taken. 

Seems as though the way I have learned to deal with room acoustics, and the way you have learned to deal with room acoustics are different. :yes:

I have been taught in the traditional fashion. Which, briefly, is to say that EVERY room will have first reflections, and other bass challenges to deal with. And to deal with those problems and other room problems you should address them methodically in the following order: 

Proper Placement & Setup
Room Treatments
Software Based Correction (Audyssey, YPAO, Sample Rate Systems (SRS), etc, etc.)

I'm a proponent of Audyssey. I also know that using room treatments properly beforehand, can only make the Audyssey system work better. :R


----------



## Bailman

SierraMikeBravo said:


> I believe you can only change that by changing the absorptive properties of the room or the dimensions. I think what you are referring to is direct timing (the time it takes for sound to reach your ears directly from all sources) which is a function of distance. If it is not in sync, the waves will be out of phase causing smearing. The problem is, measuring with a tape measure doesn't always work. The DSP can induce a lag in time which Audyssey listens for and corrects.


Mike,
Have you read this thread, specifically my post numbered 12?

A recap for all:

http://www.realtraps.com/art_audyssey.htm


I understand Kal has the Onkyo Prepro with the MultEQ XT capable of the Pro incorporation which he was going to obtain and review. What I do not know is what version was being used by his friend Ethan.

Ethan wrote:

"Recently several products have appeared claiming to do even more than EQ by using sophisticated DSP (Digital Signal Processing). They claim not only to flatten the frequency response, but also to reduce modal ringing and early reflections, and to do so successfully over the full range of audio frequencies for multiple seats in a room"


"Unfortunately, the popular audio press gushes uncritically over products like these, printing press releases as fact and never actually testing the validity of manufacturer claims. The appeal of a small electronic device that claims to replace large and visually imposing acoustic panels is undeniable. But wishful thinking does not make it so!"

"Even the vendors themselves offer no real proof that their products work as claimed. I emailed Audyssey on October 29, 2006, regarding the technical descriptions and graphs shown in THIS series of pages on their web site. I asked if they had any data to support their claims of reducing ringing, and I also asked for clarification about how the tests on their site had been performed. For example, how large the room is and how far the measuring microphone was from the walls. At the time of this writing, 3-1/2 months later, I have yet to receive a reply from Audyssey. "


"Audyssey claims to flatten the response and reduce ringing over an area large enough to encompass multiple seats, so I measured at three adjacent locations on Kal's couch. It turns out this was not necessary because the MultEQ was unable to reduce ringing even at the same place it was calibrated for. As you can see in Figure 1 at left, the main improvement is a 6 dB reduction of the lowest response peak around 35 Hz.

The graphs in Figures 1 and 2 show not only the raw low frequency response, but also the individual decay times for each peak frequency. This type of graph is called a waterfall plot, and the "mountains" come forward over time to display the decay times at each frequency. You can read a more complete explanation of waterfall plots and the ETF software I used..."


Now since there is no proof that Audyessy improves the decay times/ringing in the low end as they claim, why throw away the Behringers personalization capabilities for our subs? I had/have taken mine out of the equation BTW and I myself have noticed improvements but also immediately acknowledged sacrifices in the low end articulation and slam which the BFD could re incorporate. I am not so sold on the Audyssey implementation in our systems.



Has anybody actually measured an improvement in decay time with Audyssey? 

Are there any graphs?

Here is a product that does what Audyssey claims to do and they have graphs that apparantly show the results.

http://www.dspeaker.com/en/technology/anti-mode-technology/measurements.shtml

Now compare those graphs with Audyssey's graphs. 
http://www.audyssey.com/technology/graphs/graph1.html


----------



## Bailman

Here is a representation of Audyssey in a room. It may be a poor one but it is the only other graph I could find at this time that shows what I have been trying to discuss and what I've been experiencing.

Before:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=59121&d=1150342504

After:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=59124&d=1150342539

Notice the decay times have worsened. It is the opposite of what is advertised. Ethans web page in my other post shows the same type of increase.:thumbsdown:


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Here are those AVS graphs:


*Before*








*After*





​

I'm not sure that ringing is actually worse with the "after" graph.

Note the highlighted frequencies appear to be at ~120 Hz, ~60 Hz, and ~30 Hz. Most likely these are artifacts generated from some source other than the sound system: An air conditioner kicked in, someone turned on a washing machine or microwave oven, etc. (Note that 120 and 30 Hz are harmonic frequencies of 60-cycle noise.) You can tell it's not ringing because it's a steady-state, constant signal. Ringing from a resonating audio frequency isn't going to drone on and on forever, it's going to continually drop in level and eventually disappear - like everything else in the graph does.

Another problem with the graphs is that they show only a 30 dB window. Signal levels should be kept high for waterfall readings. Note in Ethan's graphs at the RealTraps link that its bass peak is 60 dB above the graph floor. When it comes to waterfalls, Ethan knows what he's doing, so follow his example!

Apparently even professional people who should know better have trouble analyzing waterfalls. Consider a couple from the DSPeaker site Bailman linked above:















​

You would think these folks should know what they're doing, but look at the lower graph: By the time they're done equalizing, the signal is a mere _ 20 dB_ above the graph floor. :huh:

And look at the graph's lower limit - 50 dB? What, is that for people who run box fans in their HT room? Raise your hand if the noise floor in your room is that high. :huh:

(I could comment further, but rather than sidetrack the thead you can see more that I recently presented on the subject of waterfalls here.)

I'm confident that Audyssey is a dandy product, and probably the little box from DSPeaker as well. It's a shame they label them as "time domain" products that improve sound by reducing ringing. They may do a little of that, but primarily they're improving sound by smoothing or flattening response - i.e., reducing peaks and valleys with counteracting filtering. That may or may not carry an improvement in the rate of signal decay (which must be shown if you want to claim an improvement in ringing, not merely a reduction in gain that makes a waterfall "look" better to the untrained eye). In fact, it can even make a waterfall look worse at some frequencies where boosts are enacted (again, to people who don't know how to properly read them). But IMO the improvement in sound ultimately comes from minimizing peaks and valleys, regardless of what happens to ringing. For instance, try applying equalization to your headphones, if they need it. If it makes them sound better, it was purely response smoothing - there was no ringing factor involved.

One thing that does trouble me with Audyssey is the way it appears to equalize every nook and cranny out of response (the orange line represents the equalization that will be employed):








The range between 1-3 kHz, for instance: While all those little up and down jags look bad, the truth is you really can't hear that. The ear does not hear the same way a mic "does." For instance, if you add a coffee table to your room you may see a change in a response reading, but everything sounds the same to you. So I'd be concerned that all that equalizing could degrade sound quality, but I'll leave that judgement to the folks who have actually used Audyssey.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## SierraMikeBravo

Hey Wayne,

Audyssey doesn't try to flatten out every nook and cranny. The amount of data points used for correction drops off signficantly above the midrange. Also, not sure what mic people are using for those graphs, but I have also said before that using the RS meter for anything (other than maybe nearfield environment....maybe) is a waste of time. It isn't accurate for anything. The smaller the mic grazing area the better (ideally 1/4 inch or less). If these graphs were taken with less than ideal equipment, it brings serious doubt to the validity of the graphs. I would want to know how the measurments were taken and with what equipment before I lend them any credibility. As with anything in life, you need to prove it to yourself. Don't take other people's word for it. Especially since we are talking science here. 

However, I do have one question, what good would equalizing headphones do since all problems associated with frequency response are due to the room itself? A speaker placed outside without the confines of walls should theoretically reproduce sound perfectly flat. This is one reason why large venue acoustics are so much different than small room acoustics. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## HionHiFi

SierraMikeBravo said:


> However, I do have one question, what good would equalizing headphones do since all problems associated with frequency response are due to the room itself? A speaker placed outside without the confines of walls should theoretically reproduce sound perfectly flat. This is one reason why large venue acoustics are so much different than small room acoustics. Just my 2 cents.


I believe Wayne was just using headphones as an example for this conversation. 

At the end of the day time domain is not seen to be greatly affected by either the Audyessy, nor the DSPeaker. Again the peaks and valley's are touched in varying degree based on frequency, a la smoothing, etc.


----------



## Bailman

OK Wayne,

You done convinced me.:dumbcrazy:

I guess I will rearrange my room (was gonna do this anyway) back to the way it was
and attempt to get this "dandy" product to shine like it does for so many others. 

Thanks for all your time:T BTW, the other thread going on hear @ DaShack was way cool...
a bit over my head :R but I absorbed what I could.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

FYI, John has posted a review of the DSPeaker processor.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...ing-dspeaker-anti-mode-8033-a.html#post103808

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## tdamocles

If I have 2 subs setup in a room and run Audyssey MultEQ would it be able to equalize the sum of both subs simultaneously to a somewhat of a nice equalization curve? I've run it (on an Onkyo tx-sr805) and have run REW afterwards and must say that it did a good job of equalization with 1 sub.

Does Audyssey MultEQ equalize to 10hz on an Onkyo?


----------



## SierraMikeBravo

If your sub is capable of going that low...it will. Pulses are sent across the entire frequency spectrum. However, very few subs go that low with any significant output. Most of the very good subs have a steep dB slope below 20 Hz. Most subs however, have steep slopes in the 30 Hz range or even higher when you get into the not so good subs.


----------



## Guest

Hi,
I'm a noob to posting in forums so forgive me if I rewind a bit. Having read this entire thread so far and have not noticed anyone mention how many test points that are being run during testing. Are these results from using all 8, or 6 test points available depending on receiver? I would like to know if we are comparing apples and oranges here. By that I mean that multiple measuring points over the listening area will affect the end calibration. It would be cool to know the difference made by using more measuring points. And since I do not yet use REW I cannot take these measurements myself. A pro calibration does allow for considerably more measure points than Multi EQ XT has by itself, but that is for another post. I still need 3 more to download REW:bigsmile:


----------



## Sonnie

Hi Handy...

Most of the REW graphs will be run sitting in the main listening position... but you can measure as many as you like.

When I setup Audyssey, I only use one location myself... my main listening position. Very seldom do I have 6-8 people watching a movie with me.

You do not have to have 5 posts to download REW... :T


----------



## Guest

P.S. When I received my Audyssey training, the room was acoustically treated. They didn't apologize for it and were openly mentioning the need to take care of some of the ringing and echo in the room to get optimal sound. And in that hotel conference room they just tilted up panels around the room with no discernible pattern. The demonstration was dramatic so I drank the Kool-aid and bought the kit. I bring this up in response to the link provided to the RealTraps website article. If both room treatment and Audyssey are good alone it only stands to reason that they would be great in combination. I realize that a majority of the members of this forum are the "do-it-yourself" type and I learn quite a bit from them, but thankfully not everyone is. That way guys like SierraMikeBravo and I can earn a living helping the rest enjoy their home theaters.


----------



## SierraMikeBravo

Handy,

I have always said that the more you help Audyssey, the more Audyssey helps you. This is regarding treatment of the room. While I consider myself to be knowledgeable about incorporating room treatment (diffusion, absorption, diffsorbers, abfusors, bass traps, etc.) the problem is, many folks don't like to use it as it is something that really needs to be designed into the room before you build it. Otherwise, it can be a bit unsightly for many people with a low WAF. Audyssey is a best bang for the buck in that respect. Yes, Audyssey will sound better if the room is properly designed as it isn't the magic bullet and cannot cure everything. But it does help to reduce some of the problems of an untreated room...I emphasize SOME. However, one area that I do note is that Audyssey, IMHO, sets the sub(s) way too hot. I have to usually adjust the sub level after calibration. If you can localize the sub and it is boomy, then it is too loud. 

BTW, there is other software out there for taking room measurments. It is a bit of a slippery slope to walk into a customers home and use shareware that they themselves could get for free. I am not saying not to use REW, as I do primarily for waterfall plots, but I use many other types of instruments. I also use a Sencore SP295C, numerous microphones as the Behringer ECM8000 is not good for taking grazing measurments in the listening environment (I do use it for nearfield tests though) and assorted other software that I did have to pay for. Dealing with sound is a very difficult, time consuming process. Video calibration doesn't even hold a candle to acoustic calibration. To do all the measurments necessary to do an acoustical calibration literally can take days. I have had to develop a checklist to keep handy so that I can refer back to proper order of measurements and activites to remain efficient. If you are HAA certified, the ADR can help in this respect.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Sonnie said:


> When I setup Audyssey, I only use one location myself... my main listening position. Very seldom do I have 6-8 people watching a movie with me.


Even so, you should use more than one measurement point. The reason is that you need to sample several points in order to be certain that the corrections are generally suitable over the listening area. Even if you are the sole listener, you do not (I assume) keep your head in a vise and movements of less than a foot can significantly change the local response. 

For one listener, I would suggest at least 3, and possibly 6, measurements positioned at, L/R of and an array of 3 more just in front of the principal listening spot.

Kal


----------



## eugovector

SierraMikeBravo said:


> BTW, there is other software out there for taking room measurments. It is a bit of a slippery slope to walk into a customers home and use shareware that they themselves could get for free.


I don't think you should have to feel bad about that at all. The customer is buying your expertise, not the software. If Eddie Van Halen walked out on stage with a $300 home made guitar, do you think the audience would boo him off stage until he came back with a $3000 Gibson?

Use whatever tool you think best gets the job done, even if it's free software and a $40 mic.


----------



## SierraMikeBravo

But it doesn't work, that is the problem. The expertise element isn't enough. The reason acoustic cals are done in the first place, is that many people only learn that they need to do one with websites like this. So, they are often somewhat knowledgeable. They read the threads and so on, and have somewhat of a feel for what to do. If you walk in with the same software (and one piece of software or piece of equipment isn't all you should have on you...I have multiple backups) they could have downloaded for free, they think you are feeding them a line. They immediately become suspicious of you. I have experienced this. Yes, they are paying for your expertise, but it is hard to convince some folks of that. In reality, they often pay you for the equipment they can't afford to have as well as the expertise. But expertise alone will not cut it with some people...and you know who those people are.


----------



## tenzip

The right tool for the job is the right tool for the job, regardless of price.

I can go and buy all the tools/supplies, but that doesn't give me the ability to build a house (or whatever). It's the skills and knowledge. If someone complains that you're using freeware they already had, I'd say to them, "If you had the software and everything is great, why did you call me?"

I'm not trying to tell you what tools to use, just saying it's silly of people to complain the expert used a screwdriver to fix the problem, and they had a screwdriver in the drawer all along.


----------



## SierraMikeBravo

Like I said...a slippery slope! It is just the fact of the way it is I guess. You would think people would feel that way, but in all honesty....it don't work that way. There is what is, and what it should be. Now, I am not saying it is all the time. Just with some people.


----------



## Guest

I'm not going to start my time on this forum getting into a negative discussion about calibration options and equipment. Now this may be stirring the pot when I say this, but I do have a full Sencore kit for my video calibration and no client has been impressed with that name brand. I think my job as a calibrator is not only to properly calibrate their theater, but to educate the customer as to how I am improving their theater and why. With the customer's selection of an Audyssey equipped product from me they have made a great step towards their satisfaction. Anything I can do to provide the ultimate experience for my client would be the least I should do. So if that does include shareware, I'll use it. Once I learn how, of course. That's where you all come in for me:bigsmile:
But I will always suggest an Audyssey Pro calibration. I have a kit to pay for, right?


----------



## Guest

Boy, can I kill a thread or what?


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

I think I hold the record for that... 

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## DavidMW

Watch out, Newbie blasting in!

With my new Marantz SR 7001 I have finally been able to enter the world of Audyssey goodness. This receiver only has the MultEQ without the extra goodies, so I am limited. Am looking into getting a Behringer ECM8000 mic just to test with REW, we'll see.

I like what I hear, clearly a cleaning up of midbass nastiness, bit more presence or clarity. In combination with the auto surround + THX I find music and TV/Movies to be quite engaging. 

To my questions: Does the REW work with Digidesign MBox as a Mic pre interface? (I'm on Mac OSX) Could the Audyssey mic be used instead of buying a Behringer or is it not "flat" but calibrated to a particular curve? Does the Audyssey system incorporate something like the BBE technology to "time align" the different drivers in one's system? Are there any white papers known on the Audyssey system? 

Many thanks for any thoughts. Peace, David


----------



## mtbdudex

I'm about 1 year late to this discussion....

Read all 4 pages of this thread, later I'll take/post my graphs in the other thread for that.

Prior to reading this thread I posted various Q's to "Chris", Audyssey CTO in their "Official" Audyssey thread @ avsforum.
 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15722704#post15722704  and http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15723974#post15723974

He answered http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15729471#post15729471



> Just to clarify, even if seat 5 has that big 50hz null Audyssey MultEQ would still have process for that position?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it should have no problem with it. What speaker is it on when it stops?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2nd Q:
> Other forums recommend adding 1 foot to sub distance for FBQ2496, however Audyssey MultEQ already takes into account that time delay and I don't have to do that, correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's correct. If you measure through the FBQ then MultEQ measures the delay that it adds and compensates for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3rd Q:
> How much EQ/processing does Audyssey MultEQ do in the subwoofer area?
> I have a nice slope/house curve for seat 3 via FBQ2496, would then Audyssey MultEQ flatten that out or leave it as is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MultEQ is not about house curves and personal preferences. It measures each speaker and then applies a correction filter that will make that speaker play as close as possible to the curve used in mixing the content. For film, that is a flat curve in the bass with no slope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All my sub measurements were thru the Ext In, so no Audyssey EQ was measured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK. One big source of inaccuracy in low frequency measurements is taking them in one position. You will get a much better idea of what you will hear in the listening area if you can average the measurements. The averaging needs to be RMS (root mean square) and not simple arithmetic averaging in order to get meaningful results.
Click to expand...


So, some here liked Audyssey Mult XT while some did not, that's the consensus?
Try it and if you like it use it instead of REW/BFD for sub? The YMMV applies so to speak?


----------



## Bailman

OK so I have tried and re-tried MultTEQ XT w/ mixed results. I always love what it does to the center channel, voices to be more specific. Well thats not entirely true. I also like what it does for my upper bass. It makes it less muddy still allowing a slight punch. Not like my old car audio system mind you, but the speakers aren't located 6 inches from my legs.

On the other hand it removes any life from my low end. Its dead. It isn't realistic. If I was to invite a bass player over with their equipment to play a section of what was loaded up in a DVD in my back yard it would be easy to demonstrate my claim. I'm not speaking about in room created bloat. I'm speaking about what I would label a natural musicality.

I've just about given up on Audyssey Mult XT for this reason. I guess there will be tweaks to this program so it will only mess with major nodes and suck outs. I want life back into my bass!!!! I want a flat recording to be using room gain and all its glorious effects. I just wish we didn't have the ugly side of our listening environments. Can we get a multi position EQ that doesn't remove room gain and only works on nodes? Why yes, I'm sure we can and will.


----------



## Ayreonaut

Well, you can put an equalizer between your receiver and subwoofer. Dial in any house curve you want _after_ you run Audyssey. That's what I did, it's the best of both worlds.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Ditto that. :T Nice to see you coming back around, Naut! :yes:

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Bailman

Ayreonaut said:


> Well, you can put an equalizer between your receiver and subwoofer. Dial in any house curve you want _after_ you run Audyssey. That's what I did, it's the best of both worlds.



This is what I will need to do. Break out that FBD again! :hsd:


----------



## brentsp

Hey fellas, new to the forum. Have been a Audio enthusiast for many years and have just dived in the Audyssey feature a few months ago with my purchase of my Marantz SR8002. Years ago I predicted that there would be an internal processor that would do exactly what Audyssey is doing now but I always thought THX would be the one to do it first. With that said THX will probably come out with its own version of this. 

First off, the MultiEQ is pretty cool but I can't say its a night and day difference in my system. I have to fish through the settings to really tell a difference in movies but its not much. It was to the point where I was doubting it was doing anything at all until I made a drastic preset setting with the mids cranked just to see if it was engaging. What I have yet to try is playing some pink/white noise and go through the settings. That may result in a bigger difference. I actually use the flat setting 99% of the time with THX for movies. 

Personally I think there's not enough bands of EQ to get an accurate flat response but its better than nothing at all. Also, I don't see any manual adjustment or anything at all for that matter for the sub response but yet I'm seeing graphs here that supposedly Audyssey altered. Is this just done automatically and they just choose to not let us see what was actually adjusted? Where do you guys set your crossover? My was at 60hz but I changed it to 80hz.

Unfortunately, at least with the 8002 I can't use the MultiEQ nor can I use THX processing while watching bluray disc when using Dolby TruHD and DTS MA. All the other audio formats (DD, DDex, DTS, DTSes etc.) work fine and I'm able to use the MultiEQ with it. This is only when I'm bitstreaming from my player and the Marantz is decoding. The fix to this is letting my bluray player decode the new formats via PCM only then am I able to use the MultiEQ/THX with TruHD and MA. Strange but I think thats more of a Marantz thing than Audyssey's. 

I think the ideal setup would be is to have a mono 31 band outboard eq (Art, Ashley, DBX, Samson etc.) for each speaker and use the REW program to see what needs to be adjusted. This is essentially what Audyssey is trying to do but I think its lacking IMO. This would take some time going back and forth until you had gotten a flat response but I think it would be worth it. With that said the average user would be flustered doing it this way and Audyssey has taken out the guess work for you.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

brentsp said:


> Personally I think there's not enough bands of EQ to get an accurate flat response but its better than nothing at all.


Why do you think that?



> Also, I don't see any manual adjustment or anything at all for that matter for the sub response but yet I'm seeing graphs here that supposedly Audyssey altered. Is this just done automatically and they just choose to not let us see what was actually adjusted? Where do you guys set your crossover? My was at 60hz but I changed it to 80hz.


You can change crossover frequencies and channel levels but nothing else without defeating Audyssey.



> Unfortunately, at least with the 8002 I can't use the MultiEQ nor can I use THX processing while watching bluray disc when using Dolby TruHD and DTS MA. All the other audio formats (DD, DDex, DTS, DTSes etc.) work fine and I'm able to use the MultiEQ with it. This is only when I'm bitstreaming from my player and the Marantz is decoding. The fix to this is letting my bluray player decode the new formats via PCM only then am I able to use the MultiEQ/THX with TruHD and MA. Strange but I think thats more of a Marantz thing than Audyssey's.


 Definitely and the major reason why I was not very interested in the Marantz.



> I think the ideal setup would be is to have a mono 31 band outboard eq (Art, Ashley, DBX, Samson etc.) for each speaker and use the REW program to see what needs to be adjusted. This is essentially what Audyssey is trying to do but I think its lacking IMO.


Not quite. It is a parametric which is set based on multiple measurements and with attention to modal decays.


----------



## brentsp

Kal Rubinson said:


> Why do you think that?


Parametric only gives you limited number of frequencies to alter at one time. Yeah there may be 30 or so total frequencies to choose from but you can only alter 10 at a time sometimes less. 31 band gives you 31 bands of frequencies to alter. In Audyssey's case (at least with MultiEQ) you only have 9 bands 63hz, 125hz, 250hz, 500hz, 1khz, 2khz, 4khz, 8khz and 16khz. They chose those particular frequencies probably because those are usually the problem areas but what if you have a spike/dip at 10khz 70hz 350hz? You'll just have to live with it then because Audyssey is limited just to those given frequencies.



Kal Rubinson said:


> You can change crossover frequencies and channel levels but nothing else without defeating Audyssey.


 You can change the small/large also without any effect, read below.


audyssey said:


> ........ so the simple solution is to manually set the speakers to Small after the calibration is finished. When you do that, the crossover values that were found by MultEQ will be applied to all speakers and the bass will be properly redirected to the subwoofer. This manual step is a small inconvenience, but it doesn't have any negative effect on the performance of the room correction filters produced by MultEQ.
> 
> Chris Kyriakakis
> Founder and CTO
> Audyssey Laboratories





Kal Rubinson said:


> Definitely and the major reason why I was not very interested in the Marantz.


 Yeah but its hard to beat the Marantz audio capabilities. I've done Denon 3802, 3808, Onkyo 906 and finally the 8002 and I'm not regretting it one bit.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

brentsp said:


> Parametric only gives you limited number of frequencies to alter at one time. Yeah there may be 30 or so total frequencies to choose from but you can only alter 10 at a time sometimes less.


Not so for this DSP-based multi-tap PEQ.


> In Audyssey's case (at least with MultiEQ) you only have 9 bands 63hz, 125hz, 250hz, 500hz, 1khz, 2khz, 4khz, 8khz and 16khz.


Aha! There's source of your misapprehensions. What you are describing is the *limited graphic display* of the Marantz (and most other Audyssey-based devices). That is not anything close to what Audyssey is doing. It is a mere suggestion.



> They chose those particular frequencies probably because those are usually the problem areas but what if you have a spike/dip at 10khz 70hz 350hz? You'll just have to live with it then because Audyssey is limited just to those given frequencies.


Nope. Audyssey has many filters. In fact, it has many more filters in the sub channel alone.



> You can change the small/large also without any effect, read below.


Yup. I include that under changing the crossover frequency from none to something.



> Yeah but its hard to beat the Marantz audio capabilities. I've done Denon 3802, 3808, Onkyo 906 and finally the 8002 and I'm not regretting it one bit.


Good. I have no argument with that, of course. :heehee:

Kal


----------



## SierraMikeBravo

Kal is absolutely correct. What you are describing is a graphic EQ...which can work provided you have say at least 1/24th octave resolution...ok...I would go with 1/12 below 300 Hz. The beauty of parametric EQ is that it is NOT frequency limited. Whatever the bandwidth of the mode, you can adjust for it. However, resolution does play a part in this as well. Depending on the resolution of your paramteric EQ is how accurate of a bandwidth correction you can get without overshooting or undershooting. Most built in parametric EQ's are rudimentary at best and are around the resolution of human hearing (1/3 octave), but this really limits you. Audyssey takes the processing power of the DSP to map the frequency response. It allows for higher mapping where it is needed most at 300 Hz and below. Audyssey Pro allows for a higher level of resolution, or mapping below 300 Hz, which helps out tremendously. IMHO, there is a significant jump from MultEQ XT to Audyssey Pro...and then a pretty good leap to the outboard SoundEQ...for numerous reasons.


----------



## Lordoftherings

SierraMikeBravo said:


> Kal is absolutely correct. What you are describing is a graphic EQ...which can work provided you have say at least 1/24th octave resolution...ok...I would go with 1/12 below 300 Hz. The beauty of parametric EQ is that it is NOT frequency limited. Whatever the bandwidth of the mode, you can adjust for it. However, resolution does play a part in this as well. Depending on the resolution of your paramteric EQ is how accurate of a bandwidth correction you can get without overshooting or undershooting. Most built in parametric EQ's are rudimentary at best and are around the resolution of human hearing (1/3 octave), but this really limits you. Audyssey takes the processing power of the DSP to map the frequency response. It allows for higher mapping where it is needed most at 300 Hz and below. Audyssey Pro allows for a higher level of resolution, or mapping below 300 Hz, which helps out tremendously. IMHO, there is a significant jump from MultEQ XT to Audyssey Pro...and then a pretty good leap to the outboard SoundEQ...for numerous reasons.


Thank you for the nice explanation, Shawn. :T

Bob


----------



## Kal Rubinson

SierraMikeBravo said:


> Audyssey Pro allows for a higher level of resolution, or mapping below 300 Hz, which helps out tremendously. IMHO, there is a significant jump from MultEQ XT to Audyssey Pro...and then a pretty good leap to the outboard SoundEQ...for numerous reasons.


I do not believe this is true. Pro is only software and does not change the DSP capabilities of the hardware. It permits additional measurements, calculations and options but the resolution and mapping is inherent in the hardware.

Kal


----------



## Lordoftherings

Kal Rubinson said:


> I do not believe this is true. Pro is only software and does not change the DSP capabilities of the hardware. It permits additional measurements, calculations and options but the resolution and mapping is inherent in the hardware.
> 
> Kal


Hey Kal, thanks for the rectification. :T Because, just like you, I also believe that you are absolutely right.

Bob


----------



## Lordoftherings

Any comments on this: http://www.emt.iis.fhg.de/projects/carrouso

Don't mean to be fftopic2: , just an extension to something interesting.

Bob


----------



## maxmercy

Bailman said:


> OK so I have tried and re-tried MultTEQ XT w/ mixed results. I always love what it does to the center channel, voices to be more specific. Well thats not entirely true. I also like what it does for my upper bass. It makes it less muddy still allowing a slight punch. Not like my old car audio system mind you, but the speakers aren't located 6 inches from my legs.
> 
> On the other hand it removes any life from my low end. Its dead. It isn't realistic. If I was to invite a bass player over with their equipment to play a section of what was loaded up in a DVD in my back yard it would be easy to demonstrate my claim. I'm not speaking about in room created bloat. I'm speaking about what I would label a natural musicality.
> 
> I've just about given up on Audyssey Mult XT for this reason. I guess there will be tweaks to this program so it will only mess with major nodes and suck outs. I want life back into my bass!!!! I want a flat recording to be using room gain and all its glorious effects. I just wish we didn't have the ugly side of our listening environments. Can we get a multi position EQ that doesn't remove room gain and only works on nodes? Why yes, I'm sure we can and will.



Bailman,

MultEQ XT by itself gives you a flat response (or a 'movie' response with a high freq roll-off), which if you listen at lower volume levels, the bass does seem to be 'sucked out' and 'flat'. Our ears don't hear bass as well when we turn it down, so it must be boosted (remember 'loudness' controls on old receivers?). That's what house curves with REQ are all about, to giving you the same 'impact' as you would receive at a higher overall volume level.

Audyssey created a product called Dynamic EQ for just such a reason; most people do not listen at reference volume. How it works is detailed here:

Search google for "what is audyssey's dynamic eq and dynamic volume" you'll get a hit at electronic house that has an interview with Chris Kyriakis of audyssey where he explains in detail how they work.

basically, it applies a house curve moment by moment depending on how loud the content is at the time, and what the receiver's volume level is...I think it works very well for most films...

If you listen at reference level, you have no need for a house curve or dynamic eq (dynamic eq applies less boost as you turn up the receiver's volume). You are listening to the content as the director/sound mixer intended (not necessarily how YOU would like it, though). If you listen at more sane volumes, you can benefit by the boost in the lower freqs...

JSS


----------



## eugovector

Link to above article here: http://www.electronichouse.com/article/audyssey_dynamic_eq_and_dynamic_volume/


----------



## ggallaway

I have a 7.1 setup with NHT Superzero XU speakers and an MFW-15. I definatly like how Audyssey makes the soundstage, however it seems to really cut the output of the subwoofer. I am thinking that it is mainly doing this because the speakers are so small to get a decent blend it needs to bring it down a few notches, is this reasonable or should I be looking to fix it?


----------



## tonyvdb

Your are correct on both accounts however Audyssey will turn down the sub too much and you will need to turn it back up again it is a known "bug" if thats what it should be called. Do you know what the frequency response is of the NHT speakers?


----------



## Kal Rubinson

tonyvdb said:


> Your are correct on both accounts however Audyssey will turn down the sub too much and you will need to turn it back up again it is a known "bug" if thats what it should be called. Do you know what the frequency response is of the NHT speakers?


Known bug? Under what circumstances?


----------



## ggallaway

tonyvdb said:


> Your are correct on both accounts however Audyssey will turn down the sub too much and you will need to turn it back up again it is a known "bug" if thats what it should be called. Do you know what the frequency response is of the NHT speakers?


The NHT's are rated at -3db at 86hz so they don't quite get to the 80hz recommended by THX. the Onkyo puts them at 150 for the center and 150 for all the others as the crossover for the sub. is this normal? should I adjust these? 

Thanks for your reply


----------



## Kal Rubinson

ggallaway said:


> The NHT's are rated at -3db at 86hz so they don't quite get to the 80hz recommended by THX. the Onkyo puts them at 150 for the center and 150 for all the others as the crossover for the sub. is this normal? should I adjust these?
> 
> Thanks for your reply


Clearly, 80Hz is inadequate for these (or vice versa). Ideally, one would actually measure the responses in-room but you might just experiment and try 100Hz. In terms of subwoofer localization (or lack thereof), this would be an improvement if the NHT's are up for it.


----------



## tonyvdb

Kal Rubinson said:


> Known bug? Under what circumstances?


Its not really a "bug" but Audyssey MultEQ is known to set the level of the subwoofer to low in alot of cases.


----------



## cavchameleon

Hi Tony,

I think that many feel the sub levels are too low with Audyssey because they are used to having the subs a bit hot. Audyssey sets the level very flat and if one is use to even a 2db hot sub, it will sound too low. I though this also until I got used to it and could hear more detail (esp with bass guitar and lower registers of piano).

Ray


----------



## Kal Rubinson

tonyvdb said:


> Its not really a "bug" but Audyssey MultEQ is known to set the level of the subwoofer to low in alot of cases.


Too low for the preferences of some users but the levels it sets are accurate and correct. Personal taste as well as long-term adaptation to un-flat bass might make some want more.


----------



## ggallaway

I do have an spl meter, should I use the built in test tones to set the level or try and use REW? what should be the steps or if you could point me to a thread that goes into this in some detail that would be great!


----------



## Kal Rubinson

ggallaway said:


> I do have an spl meter, should I use the built in test tones to set the level or try and use REW? what should be the steps or if you could point me to a thread that goes into this in some detail that would be great!


If you are using Audyssey (assumed in this thread), there is no need for any external technology to set the level. Now, you can use REW to check/see what it is doing but, if you want more bass, just set it by ear.


----------



## Lordoftherings

You can always use the Radio Shack SPL Meter for verification purpose, but be aware that it is not accurate. Still, it helps to put you in the ball park, and in particular for more than one sub.
After using the RS meter, just deduct 1.5 to 2db from the subwoofer level, for a fair value.
Here's a quick look at what you should deduct from some specific frequencies:
20hz -> deduct 7.5db
25hz -> deduct 5db
31.5hz -> deduct 3db *
40hz -> deduct 2.5db *
50hz -> deduct 1.5db *
63hz -> deduct 1.5db *
80hz -> deduct 1.5db *
100hz -> deduct 2db

Bob


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Lordoftherings said:


> You can always use the Radio Shack SPL Meter for verification purpose, but be aware that it is not accurate.


If it ain't accurate, what verification is it?


----------



## Lordoftherings

Kal Rubinson said:


> If it ain't accurate, what verification is it?


Well, you have a better suggestion to balance my three subs?

Bob


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Lordoftherings said:


> Well, you have a better suggestion to balance my three subs?
> Bob


Well, first off, I had no idea that this is the use you were referring to. The preceding posts were about bass levels in Audyssey.
Second, it is an OK way for gross level settings.


----------



## Lordoftherings

Kal Rubinson said:


> Well, first off, I had no idea that this is the use you were referring to. The preceding posts were about bass levels in Audyssey.
> Second, it is an OK way for gross level settings.


LOL, Kal, I cannot afford better equipment, so I'll stick with gross. :yes:

And that's what I was talking about (bass levels from my Onkyo TX-SR876).

You have 3 subs in your setup Kal?
From your DTC-9.8, with Audyssey MultEQ Pro v3, anything else you're using to calibrate the bass level?

* By the way Kal, I super enjoyed "Music In The Round", every month. I learned some good stuff in there from your objective reviews and impressions. 

Bob


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Lordoftherings said:


> LOL, Kal, I cannot afford better equipment, so I'll stick with gross. :yes:
> 
> And that's what I was talking about (bass levels from my Onkyo TX-SR876).
> 
> You have 3 subs in your setup Kal?


Nope. I have only the jl f113 in one system but the other currently has a Paradigm Servo-15 and the new Sub-15.



> From your DTC-9.8, with Audyssey MultEQ Pro v3, anything else you're using to calibrate the bass level?


REW, TEF, XTZ, TrueRTA.............................



> * By the way Kal, I super enjoyed "Music In The Round", every month. I learned some good stuff in there from your objective reviews and impressions.
> 
> Bob


Thanks. It is nice to hear that.


----------



## Lordoftherings

Kal Rubinson said:


> REW, TEF, XTZ, TrueRTA..............................


Here you go Kal, you have all the tools at your disposition; that makes it an excellent way for "net" level settings. :T

Me, I just have to stick with my OK way for "gross" ones. :boxer:
Just kidding. addle:

Bob


----------



## Lordoftherings

Hello Mr. Rubinson (Kal).

Could you please tell me what these stand for?

1. REW
2. TEF (or is it ETF?)
3. XTZ
4. TrueRTA
5. ............

Thank you,

Bob


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Lordoftherings said:


> Hello Mr. Rubinson (Kal).
> 
> Could you please tell me what these stand for?
> 
> 1. REW =* Room EQ Wizard * http://www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/
> 
> 2. TEF (or is it ETF?) * TEF is a trademark of Goldline* http://www.gold-line.com/tef/tef.htm
> *(I also have used ETF but it has been replaced by R+D and I have not gotten around to learning it. *http://www.etfacoustic.com/)
> 
> 3. XTZ *= XTZ Room Analyzer* http://www.xtz.se/produkt.php?allmant=true&produkt=41&eng=true
> 
> 4. TrueRTA *= TrueRTA* http://www.trueaudio.com/
> 
> 5. ............ *= ?????*
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Bob


Howzat? (All from Google)


----------



## cavchameleon

Kal,

Thanks a lot for the links. I've used REW and TrueRTA. I remember seeing the fancy graphs you have in your review (BTW, I always look forward to your section in Stereophile - one of the best parts of the publication!!!), now I want XTZ also. It seems very reasonably priced.

Thanks!
Ray


----------



## Lordoftherings

Kal Rubinson said:


> Howzat? (All from Google)


Wow! This is excellent Kal. Thank you very much sir. :T

* Now; what "Howzat" stands for? :newspaper: Anything to do with the wife sneeking in, behind your affairs? :bigsmile:

Bob


----------



## warpdrive

I know the RS meter is off by a few dB in the lower registers but even with that considered, I used test tones from the receiver itself and I found that Odyssey was conservative with my bass level so I still bumped it up 3dB after the calibration and then I ran REW, and it was still flat. Unless you have dynamic EQ, I think running it hot by a couple of dB is preferable anyway due to loudness curves of your ear.

I like Audyssey in general, it does a way better job IME than YPAO or the others, but you shouldn't be scared to modify the resulting settings to your liking. I didn't like the fact that it set my speakers to large (which I changed), and also my Onkyo 875 didn't have user selectable target curves (my next receiver will have a flat setting....cough Denon cough)


----------



## Kal Rubinson

warpdrive said:


> I know the RS meter is off by a few dB in the lower registers but even with that considered, I used test tones from the receiver itself and I found that Odyssey was conservative with my bass level so I still bumped it up 3dB after the calibration and then I ran REW, and it was still flat. Unless you have dynamic EQ, I think running it hot by a couple of dB is preferable anyway due to loudness curves of your ear.


Again. There's no reason to think that the RW meter with pink noise at a random position is in any way more accurate than Audyssey for this but, again, if you *prefer *more bass, you are certainly entitled to have it your way.



> I like Audyssey in general, it does a way better job IME than YPAO or the others, but you shouldn't be scared to modify the resulting settings to your liking. I didn't like the fact that it set my speakers to large (which I changed), and also my Onkyo 875 didn't have user selectable target curves (my next receiver will have a flat setting....cough Denon cough)


Again, again. Audyssey does not select large/small; that is done by the AVR manufacturer.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Lordoftherings said:


> * Now; what "Howzat" stands for?


Phonetic spelling of "How is that?"


----------



## warpdrive

Kal Rubinson said:


> Again. There's no reason to think that the RW meter with pink noise at a random position is in any way more accurate than Audyssey for this but, again, if you *prefer *more bass, you are certainly entitled to have it your way.
> 
> Again, again. Audyssey does not select large/small; that is done by the AVR manufacturer.


I did check it with REW later and I found that it was flatter in the 40-60 range after I bumped it up
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kal Rubinson

warpdrive said:


> I did check it with REW later and I found that it was flatter in the 40-60 range after I bumped it up
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I am surprised since I have almost always found agreement between REW and Audyssey, if adequate care is taken with mic placement.


----------



## warpdrive

It seems to flatten the 60-100 range pretty well but I found the 40-60 pretty droopy, so bumping up the level by 3dB helped add back some impact I thought was missing.


----------



## Lordoftherings

warpdrive said:


> I know the RS meter is off by a few dB in the lower registers but even with that considered, I used test tones from the receiver itself and I found that Odyssey was conservative with my bass level so I still bumped it up 3dB after the calibration and then I ran REW, and it was still flat. Unless you have dynamic EQ, I think running it hot by a couple of dB is preferable anyway due to loudness curves of your ear.
> 
> I like Audyssey in general, it does a way better job IME than YPAO or the others, but you shouldn't be scared to modify the resulting settings to your liking. I didn't like the fact that it set my speakers to large (which I changed), and also my Onkyo 875 didn't have user selectable target curves (my next receiver will have a flat setting....cough Denon cough)


Hi Warpdrive,

You're right, the RS meter is off, not only in the lower registers by as much as 20db at 10hz! :yikes:
And still a big 7.5db off at 20hz! And even at 25hz, it's still off by 5db.
But it is also off in the high registers; at 4khz, 5khz, 6.3khz and 8khz, it is still off by 2db.
So, the Radio Shack SPL Meter is not totally "linear". But you knew that. :shh:
* By the way, Audyssey with an A, not an O (on your first paragraph only). 

But the good thing about it, is that when you know the values from a chart, you can compensate to correct them. Below is the link on the Correction Values for the RS SPL Meter:
@ http://www.danmarx.org/audioinnovation/rsmeter.html

Here's another link, on the RS SPL meter, pubished by SVS (The Bass Authority) from their frequently asked questions (FAQ):
@ http://www.svsound.com/questions-faqs.cfm#meter

And their Compensation Chart (on the RS SPL Meter), only for the low frequencies (from 10hz to 125hz):
@ http://www.svsound.com/questions-faqs-rscomp.cfm

Now, I agree with you, that by adding a couple dbs or so, does in fact seems to restore properly and balance the bass with the rest of the system. It just sounds right to my ears too (for Movies).
But for Music only listening in 2-channel stereo, I deduct about one decibel or two. Again, it just seems to blend better with my two front mains. I guess it all depends of your room's acoustics, your subwoofer capability, your two main front speakers' qualities, your subwoofer's and main speaker's positions, and your own set of ears.

Audyssey is only a tool, but a good one to help you with some room acoustic issues.
But it certainly is not perfect, what is?
* By the way, your Onkyo TX-SR875 does have a Flat Audyssey (target curve) setting, but only when in THX Cinema mode.
It is automatically engaged when you select the THX Cinema audio mode.
** And it's very true what Kal is saying; Audyssey DOES NOT select your speakers as Large or Small, your Onkyo receiver DOES.
So many people are still confused by that, which is sad. There is a lack of clear information on this, and from Audyssey, and from the manufacturers. I don't blame one, I blame both.

And I agree with you, as I myself, at the end, always fine tune the results by ears, so they sound pleasant to my ears. I trust no one but God. And God is wherever you want him to be. :shh:

But there is one guy that I also trust somehow (after my ears and God, of course); and it is Kal Rubinson, because of it's vast experience with several tools for analysing and measuring, which he knows that are best at what they do. :yes:
Kal is probably one of the most knowledgeable person on various audio products and their interaction in our daily lifes. That's the benefit from years of audio experience, great dedication, "good spirit" man, and a passion for sound accuracy.
And we all know, that he's been writing about audio for as long as there are cars in our streets (well, almost). :unbelievable:

Just my simple thoughts on the subject.

Regards,

Bob


----------



## Lordoftherings

Kal Rubinson said:


> Phonetic spelling of "How is that?"


Thanks again Kal; without you, I don't know what I would do. :dontknow: :innocent:

Bob


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Lordoftherings said:


> Hi Warpdrive,
> 
> You're right, the RS meter is off, not only in the lower registers by as much as 20db at 10hz! :yikes:
> And still a big 7.5db off at 20hz! And even at 25hz, it's still off by 5db.
> But it is also off in the high registers; at 4khz, 5khz, 6.3khz and 8khz, it is still off by 2db.


The Radio Shack meter isn’t really “off;” it tracks the C-weighting scale, like it's supposed to. The problem is that we are often using it for something it wasn’t really designed for – determining frequency response rather than sound pressure levels. 










*C-Weighting Curve*​

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Lordoftherings said:


> And we all know, that he's been writing about audio for as long as there are cars in our streets (well, almost). :unbelievable:


There are cars in our streets?!?!? I gotta get out more.


----------



## warpdrive

I guess my point was: Audyssey does a great job but that doesn't mean you can't go in a tweak it a bit afterward for better results. In my case it did a great job of optimizing across three seats but I felt it sacrificed a bit too much in the primary seating location. I have a feeling it tried to optimize for flatness in the 60-100 Hz range, but the sound lost impact in the 40-60 range. I found that bumping the level up helped a bit.

I know that my Onkyo uses a flat target curve in THX but then I still end up with THX processing. I should have the choice. I want a totally flat response curve for music listening. I want a receiver that has EQ profiles for different inputs, custom video settings for different inputs. That's why I'm looking to replace my Onkyo


----------



## brucek

> I want a totally flat response curve for music listening.


Since human hearing doesn't follow a flat response, wouldn't it be better to contour the response to more closely match how you hear?

brucek


----------



## warpdrive

brucek said:


> Since human hearing doesn't follow a flat response, wouldn't it be better to contour the response to more closely match how you hear?
> 
> brucek


No because when I listen to music in two channel mode, it doesn't need any EQ 

Denons offer this option on their receivers but my Onkyo does not for some reason
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kal Rubinson

brucek said:


> Since human hearing doesn't follow a flat response, wouldn't it be better to contour the response to more closely match how you hear?
> brucek


No. Flat or slightly tipped down to compensate for the different acoustics in the concert hall and home. If you compensate for your hearing variations then, in comparison to live music, the system will sound different to you and to others. Now, if you have a personal preference for a little tweaking to make you happy, that is another story.



warpdrive said:


> No because when I listen to music in two channel mode, it doesn't need any EQ


Really? Do you change rooms? :bigsmile:


----------



## brucek

> in comparison to live music


But I always thought that a band would adjust the overall response when doing their sound checks to tailor the result that accounted for hearing, and the room they were in. This then would offer the listener the same SPL level from a low, mid, and high frequency signal for example, that they would perceive as flat.

In the home, if you play a low, mid, and high frequency signal at the same level, you'll perceive them quite differently.

brucek


----------



## warpdrive

Kal Rubinson said:


> No. Flat or slightly tipped down to compensate for the different acoustics in the concert hall and home. If you compensate for your hearing variations then, in comparison to live music, the system will sound different to you and to others. Now, if you have a personal preference for a little tweaking to make you happy, that is another story.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Do you change rooms? :bigsmile:


I have a separate system that sounds great and it has no processing at all
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kal Rubinson

brucek said:


> But I always thought that a band would adjust the overall response when doing their sound checks to tailor the result that accounted for hearing, and the room they were in. This then would offer the listener the same SPL level from a low, mid, and high frequency signal for example, that they would perceive as flat.


Really? I have no knowledge of that as I attend acoustical performances almost exclusively. The conductor does have a role in balancing the sound for a particular hall but that is with regard to general hearing, not anything specific. Nonetheless, whatever is heard live should be conveyed to the listener at home (via mics, recording, mastering, playback, etc) as accurately (flat) in order for it to effectively recreate the original. Any tweaking, for taste or hearing problems, will deviate from accuracy.



> In the home, if you play a low, mid, and high frequency signal at the same level, you'll perceive them quite differently.


Yup and the differences will be different at different levels, as well. That is how we hear the world normally and any compensation will detract from the semblance of the real event. In other words, our hearing mechanisms are a fixed variable for each of us.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

warpdrive said:


> I have a separate system that sounds great and it has no processing at all
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Good for you. Most people who feel that way, and who do not have an acoustically engineered listening space, have adapted to the sound of home stereo and adopted it as reference. That does not mean it is accurate.

So, my point is: If you have the stereo and mch systems in the same room, why should you not correct the acoustics for the stereo system when you acknowledge the use of it for MCH?


----------



## warpdrive

Kal Rubinson said:


> Good for you. Most people who feel that way, and who do not have an acoustically engineered listening space, have adapted to the sound of home stereo and adopted it as reference. That does not mean it is accurate.
> 
> So, my point is: If you have the stereo and mch systems in the same room, why should you not correct the acoustics for the stereo system when you acknowledge the use of it for MCH?


Kal, I never claimed it was 100% accurate, but it's a separate system in a completely separate room, and it's a traditional integrated amp with 2 speakers and CD player (with no options for EQ except the crude tone controls), which is where I spend my time listening to music, and I think it sounds tonally quite fine even compared to my HT system which has Audyssey XT. For the price I paid for that integrated amp, I could have easily bought a receiver that has Audyssey but I didn't think I needed it.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

warpdrive said:


> Kal, I never claimed it was 100% accurate, but it's a separate system in a completely separate room, and it's a traditional integrated amp with 2 speakers and CD player (with no options for EQ except the crude tone controls), which is where I spend my time listening to music, and I think it sounds tonally quite fine even compared to my HT system which has Audyssey XT. For the price I paid for that integrated amp, I could have easily bought a receiver that has Audyssey but I didn't think I needed it.


I have no argument with that _traditional _approach which can be extremely satisfying. My argument is with the proposition, often made, that one needs/uses the EQ for the mch system but that it is not necessary for stereo, in the same room. The room either needs the help or it does not and that determination is independent of the number of channels in use.


----------



## warpdrive

I have no qualms with using EQ unlike some "purists". But I'd rather leave it flat than use the tone controls in most of the standard stereo component implementations of it. The only one I"ve liked was an old NAD amp which seemed to affect a narrower range of frequencies (the actual extremes). If there somebody offered a reasonably priced but decent 2 channel int-amp that had Audyssey, I'd be lining up with my credit card.


----------



## Lordoftherings

Ok Wayne, I used the word "off", because the poster used it, so I wanted to make life very simple, by also using his own word.

If it would be my own choice of word, I would say that the Radio Shack Sound Pressure Level Meter is not totally "accurate" in the lower frequencies of let say, from about 30hz or so and below, and also in the higher frequencies of let say, from about 10khz or so and above.

But I totally agree with you; using the RS SPL Meter is not the tool to check the frequency response of your "ROOM", from the sound emanating from your speakers' drivers, and bouncing all around from the walls, floor & ceiling. 
It's just a ball game to put you in the end field. :whew:

Best regards,
Bob


----------



## Lordoftherings

Kal Rubinson said:


> There are cars in our streets?!?!? Jeez, I gotta get out more.


LOL. Indeed, Kal, the computer age is blinding us from the real ouside life of our neighborhoods.  :hide: :drive: 

:cowboy:


----------



## Lordoftherings

warpdrive said:


> I have no qualms with using EQ unlike some "purists". But I'd rather leave it flat than use the tone controls in most of the standard stereo component implementations of it. The only one I"ve liked was an old NAD amp which seemed to affect a narrower range of frequencies (the actual extremes). If there somebody offered a reasonably priced but decent 2 channel int-amp that had Audyssey, I'd be lining up with my credit card.


You'll need a separate Audyssey Sound EQ for that.

* Audyssey Sound EQualizer
@ http://www.audyssey.com/soundequalizer/index.html

* Audyssey Sub EQ
@ http://www.audyssey.com/hometheater/subeq.html

________________________________

1. Audyssey Sound Equalizer - Review :yay:
@ http://www.avrev.com/home-theater-accessories/acoustics-eq-room-tuning/audyssey-sound-equalizer.html

2. Audyssey MultEQ Pro Sound Equalizer Review :clap:
@ http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/acoustics/audyssey-multeq-pro-sound-equalizer

*** Get that credit card easily accessible. :T :bigsmile:

Bob


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

brucek said:


> But I always thought that a band would adjust the overall response when doing their sound checks to tailor the result that accounted for hearing, and the room they were in. This then would offer the listener the same SPL level from a low, mid, and high frequency signal for example, that they would perceive as flat.


Ah, would that we should be so lucky! Truth is, most musicians - at least the "band" types who often have no formal training - can tell you if their drums sound good (to them), or that their Strat sounds awesome through a Marshall half-stack with a 100-watt head outfitted with this or that kind of tubes, but have no clue how to achieve an accurate mix. The majority of live sound engineers I’ve come across (or heard their “product”) are just as bad, capable of delivering at best a muddy-sounding mix.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## warpdrive

Lordoftherings said:


> You'll need a separate Audyssey Sound EQ for that.
> 
> * Audyssey Sound EQualizer
> @ http://www.audyssey.com/soundequalizer/index.html
> 
> * Audyssey Sub EQ
> @ http://www.audyssey.com/hometheater/subeq.html
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> *** Get that credit card easily accessible. :T :bigsmile:
> 
> Bob


I hear my credit card running away scared and whimpering. 

Here's hoping I win that giveaway SVS bass EQ unit


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

brucek said:


> Since human hearing doesn't follow a flat response, wouldn't it be better to contour the response to more closely match how you hear?





Kal Rubinson said:


> No. Flat or slightly tipped down to compensate for the different acoustics in the concert hall and home. If you compensate for your hearing variations then, in comparison to live music, the system will sound different to you and to others.


A house curve is compensation for the room more so than the ear.




Kal Rubinson said:


> In the home, if you play a low, mid, and high frequency signal at the same level, you'll perceive them quite differently.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup and the differences will be different at different levels, as well.
Click to expand...

Just calibrate the system for the level you normally listen and it will be adequate for most level variations from that point, except extreme ones. With extreme changes from your normal settings you typically aren’t doing critical listening anyway – ultra-low for background music, or ultra high when you’re “showing off” the system's capabilities. In these instances, typically all that’s needed (if anything) is a simple level adjustment of the sub, not a total re-curving.




Kal Rubinson said:


> The conductor does have a role in balancing the sound for a particular hall but that is with regard to general hearing, not anything specific. Nonetheless, whatever is heard live should be conveyed to the listener at home (via mics, recording, mastering, playback, etc) as accurately (flat) in order for it to effectively recreate the original.


Hmm, curious. The conductor makes adjustments for the room to make sure the sound is balanced, but we shouldn't do the same in ours? :scratch:

It’s pretty easy to tell if you have a house curve slope or not (and most people do, even if they claim they have flat response). Just play broadband pink noise through your system at an adequate level, and switch your SPL meter between A- and C-weighting. As you probably know, in the A-weighting setting, the meter ignores (i.e. rolls out) response below 1000 Hz, while C-weighting registers down to 40 Hz or so. If the SPL reading increases when you switch the meter to the C setting, then you have louder levels below 1000 Hz than you do above. IOW, you don't have flat response. You have a house curve.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Lordoftherings

warpdrive said:


> I hear my credit card running away scared and whimpering.
> 
> Here's hoping I win that giveaway SVS bass EQ unit


Yeah, I her you. $2,500 is no small pocket change.

I wish you good luck on winning that SVS SubEQ1, you seem like you deserve it. :T


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Hmm, curious. The conductor makes adjustments for the room to make sure the sound is balanced, but we shouldn't do the same in ours? :scratch:


Not if you want to hear what the conductor (and the rest of the recording team) put on the recording. The reproduction system (including the room) should be completely neutral unless, of course, you prefer something different.


----------



## warpdrive

I just got my Denon receiver and did an Audyssey calibration. I used the exact same tripod and seating positions, and the difference from my previous Onkyo Audyssey XT calibration is quite substantial. My sub trim setting is +9dB compared to my other channels, whereas on my Onkyo there was only a 4dB difference, and quick check using the ratshack meter seems to confirm that the overall sub level is higher. Now my sub is quite audible and I don't feel the need to bump it up manually at all, in fact the bass is nearly overwhelming. Weird that it seems that the results are the subjectively different. I should break out the REW again. 

I'm also enjoying the fact that the Denons have a flat setting which sounds better to my ears than the regular target curve. With the regular target curve, my Paradigms sound kind of dull.

Dynamic EQ and Volume is also a killer feature for regular TV watching. Every receiver should offer this sort of feature. It made buying the Denon worth every cent. Anybody want a gently used Onkyo 875? (j/k, I'm going to keep it)


----------



## brucek

> seems to confirm that the overall sub level is higher


I just got a new Denon receiver too, and found that the bass is indeed boosted more than I would have expected with Audyssey. I like a lot of bass in movies, so it suits me for that.

I do like the Dynamic EQ, especially since I usually listen at low volumes and appreciate the bass boost. I'm not too fussed about the Dynamic Volume, although it does stop all the level jumping when switching channels on the satellite. I found that the default setting for Dynamic Volume was Midnight setting on the Denons, so after changing it to Daytime, the compression wasn't as great, so it's better than I originally felt.



> I'm also enjoying the fact that the Denons have a flat setting which sounds better to my ears than the regular target curve. With the regular target curve, my Paradigms sound kind of dull.


I believe that the Audyssey Reference setting is flat to about 4KHz, then slightly rolls off to 10KHz, then adds more rolloff from 10KHz-20KHz. This is more for movie watching.
The Audyssey Flat setting is better for music since it has no rolloff.

brucek


----------



## atledreier

The difference between the Audyssey runs is probably from subtle changes in measurement position, which can hugely affect the resulting correction. You could probably get the same change with another run with your Onkyo. 

Having said that, the only time I feel Audyssey is lacking in bass is if one or more of the measurements are close to a boundary. Keep them at ear level and away from boundaries, and the result is more predictable and usually very satisfactory.


----------



## warpdrive

atledreier said:


> The difference between the Audyssey runs is probably from subtle changes in measurement position, which can hugely affect the resulting correction. You could probably get the same change with another run with your Onkyo.
> .


I ran the process twice, and I had run the EQ three times on the Onkyo (I was really unhappy with the first two runs, the bass impact seemed completely missing). Maybe the extra resolution of XT is more "picky"?

It's not a scientific conclusion but I really do feel the Denon's calibration puts out more bass. I did try to replicate what I did for the Onkyo, same tripod, same height, middle of the seat of my three seating positions. Even if there is a replication error, the difference in the calibrations is quite noticeable. 

Now the begs the question, if the difference in calibration from run to run can be so different, then how do we know that we did a good run? Let's say I do it one day, and then next day I do it again and get a different result, then was it correct the first day or second day?


----------



## Lordoftherings

warpdrive said:


> I just got my Denon receiver and did an Audyssey calibration. I used the exact same tripod and seating positions, and the difference from my previous Onkyo Audyssey XT calibration is quite substantial. My sub trim setting is +9dB compared to my other channels, whereas on my Onkyo there was only a 4dB difference, and quick check using the ratshack meter seems to confirm that the overall sub level is higher. Now my sub is quite audible and I don't feel the need to bump it up manually at all, in fact the bass is nearly overwhelming. Weird that it seems that the results are the subjectively different. I should break out the REW again.
> 
> I'm also enjoying the fact that the Denons have a flat setting which sounds better to my ears than the regular target curve. With the regular target curve, my Paradigms sound kind of dull.
> 
> Dynamic EQ and Volume is also a killer feature for regular TV watching. Every receiver should offer this sort of feature. It made buying the Denon worth every cent. Anybody want a gently used Onkyo 875? (j/k, I'm going to keep it)


By any means, do use the REW again, and each and every time.

* Two different manufacturers, two different implementations.

* Just curious, is it the Denon AVR-3808CI?



warpdrive said:


> I ran the process twice, and I had run the EQ three times on the Onkyo (I was really unhappy with the first two runs, the bass impact seemed completely missing). Maybe the extra resolution of XT is more "picky"?
> 
> It's not a scientific conclusion but I really do feel the Denon's calibration puts out more bass. I did try to replicate what I did for the Onkyo, same tripod, same height, middle of the seat of my three seating positions. Even if there is a replication error, the difference in the calibrations is quite noticeable.
> 
> Now the begs the question, if the difference in calibration from run to run can be so different, then how do we know that we did a good run? Let's say I do it one day, and then next day I do it again and get a different result, then was it correct the first day or second day?


I found that experimentating with various mic positions from several Audyssey MultEQ XT runs get you closer to satisfying results. Oh, and always by using the full eight maximum mic measurement positions.

For me, Denon and Onkyo receivers have a different sound, with the Denon seeming fuller in the bass and midrange, and the highs sounding more roll-off.
Onkyo, perhaps less roll-off in the highs with less emphasis in the lows and mids.
Both then, still missing that last minute detail and spaciousness (without Audyssey).

"How do we know that we did a good run, from one day to the next"?
Great question. Again, make use of the REW. Try to have your set of ears in top shape each and every day, and make good use of them by listening attentively, but not extensively.
It's all a balancing act, and at the end, your ears plus your common good sense (getting acquainted with a new sound), will dictate you what sounds best from these listening sessions, and in the overall post time period.

* Nothing's perfect in life, only God is. raying:

Cheers,
Bob


----------



## warpdrive

Lordoftherings said:


> By any means, do use the REW again, and each and every time.
> 
> * Two different manufacturers, two different implementations.


That was my whole point. The results I got were different and I can only conclude that Denon's impl results in different end results.



> * Just curious, is it the Denon AVR-3808CI?


2310




> I found that experimentating with various mic positions from several Audyssey MultEQ XT runs get you closer to satisfying results. Oh, and always by using the full eight maximum mic measurement positions.


I only have three seating positions (one couch with three seats), should I need to run extra positions?



> "How do we know that we did a good run, from one day to the next"?
> Great question. Again, make use of the REW. Try to have your set of ears in top shape each and every day, and make good use of them by listening attentively, but not extensively.


I guess I just posed the question to raise the point that if runs do vary so much, then does't that render the whole point of auto-calibration relatively useless? What good is it if I have to double check with REW every time? If I have to keep rerunning it repeatedly to get better and better results, it seems like I'd be better off just buying a BFD or something and doing it myself?

As long as I follow the guidelines (reading the Audyssey hints about correctly running the test, placing the mic's), shouldn't the first run be good enough?


----------



## Lordoftherings

warpdrive said:


> I only have three seating positions (one couch with three seats), should I need to run extra positions?
> 
> I guess I just posed the question to raise the point that if runs do vary so much, then does't that render the whole point of auto-calibration relatively useless? What good is it if I have to double check with REW every time? If I have to keep rerunning it repeatedly to get better and better results, it seems like I'd be better off just buying a BFD or something and doing it myself?
> 
> As long as I follow the guidelines (reading the Audyssey hints about correctly running the test, placing the mic's), shouldn't the first run be good enough?


1. Not only Audyssey recommends using the full maximum mic positions available (in your case; eight '8' from your denon 2310CI, with MultEQ XT), but many people confirm that, including myself.
* Now, in my room, I only have one (1) listening position. What to do? What to do? 
Improvise, read Audyssey guidelines, be wise, be smart, be creative, go beyond the boundaries of human laws, be a true disciple of God. ...Just take eight measurements from eight microphone positions, that's all.
Who cares, if I'm all alone in my only one listening position in my own room. I just want to feel that I'm not alone anymore. Anything's wrong with that? 
I just take 3 measurements from the couch; center, right & left; then three more; a bit (one foot) ahead of the three ones in line with my ears; then two more, just behind (one foot) my couch.

Like so:

____________________________________Front__________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
______________________________4______5______6______________________________
_________________________3___________1___________2_________________________
_________________________________8_______7_________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________Back___________________________________

* There are zillion more possibilities, this is just one if them.
** But do take ALL THE EIGHT positions, for BEST results. So, YES, do take more than three.

After you done so, you might change your opinion on the validity of Audyssey Room EQ.
And don't be a fool, it's only a piece of electronics, you need some acoustic room treatments to fully benefit from a sound improvement in your room, hein? No? Makes sense? I sure hope so, cause if a machine can do what a human cannot, that'll be the day! 
* Way of speach, of course.

We don't get it usually right from the first time. I'm still at it after about over 100 times!
But I just luv it, I luv the full process of it; to complicate my life is fun and exciting and feeling real alive.
I hate simplicity, it's so boring and unrewarding.

* What good would it be, if God had put us in this planet without any challenges whatsoever???
Can you just imagine, a world of Peace, without Wars? 

* Audyssey Setup Guideline is like the ten commandments, from the Bible, as inscribed by God from the sky, with flashes of lightning as a pen, into the rock tablets holded by Moses (I saw it of my own eyes from the movie). It is also written in the Bible, which I used to read, when I was much younger.
Do you follow them all, every single day of your life?
Well, it's the same thing with Audyssey; takes time, dedication, patience, perseverance, and love, to finally reach the ultimate goal, isn't it?

Bob


----------



## cavchameleon

Great advice Bob.

Here is a very thorough setup guided (given the OK by Chris from Audyssey):

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

There is a link at bottom of the post to download a 'word' version, good to print out. This is compliments of Mark (giomania) of the thread and all those who added their 2cents to the process. 

Thanks,
Ray


----------



## maxmercy

The increased bass response of Audyssey's MultEQ (I also have a Denon) can be as a result of the 'level matching' feature Audyssey uses. I was having trouble with Audyssey boosting my lows (below 20Hz) to the point that at higher volumes, my sub would distort. Audyssey is NOT supposed to add any correction to the sub below it's -3dB point, but here is what is happening:

Here is my subwoofer out's curve (with REW) without Audyssey engaged:









Here is the Audyssey curve for the sub out:









Here are the two together, showing the relative levels of each:








Now, if I move the Audyssey trace down by 10dB, here's what we get:









As you can see, Audyssey DOES NOT apply any correction below my sub's -3dB point (around 20Hz), but to match the levels between Audyssey on and Audyssey off (so no large shifts in volume will occur when Audyssey is turned on or off), Audyssey increases the gain throughout the whole subwoofer band by 10dB. That 10dB boost in the nether regions is what caused my sub to complain, and I needed to add a 15Hz 24dB/octave highpass filter in front of the sub's amp to counteract it....but now it sounds wonderful. Unfortunately, with only one sub, really only one listening spot can be dead flat...

The same boost occurs in the lower registers of the main/center/surround speakers, so if you do not have capable 'satellites', Audyssey can make them complain if crossed too low. 10dB is 10x the power. 

JSS


----------



## Lordoftherings

cavchameleon said:


> Great advice Bob.
> 
> Here is a very thorough setup guided (given the OK by Chris from Audyssey):
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14456895#post14456895
> 
> There is a link at bottom of the post to download a 'word' version, good to print out. This is compliments of Mark (giomania) of the thread and all those who added their 2cents to the process.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ray


Thanks Ray. I did work a bit with Mark for some of my own recommendations on that Guide.
It is a very valuable source of great info on proper setup.
Cool man. 

Bob


----------



## Lordoftherings

maxmercy said:


> The increased bass response of Audyssey's MultEQ (I also have a Denon) can be as a result of the 'level matching' feature Audyssey uses. I was having trouble with Audyssey boosting my lows (below 20Hz) to the point that at higher volumes, my sub would distort. Audyssey is NOT supposed to add any correction to the sub below it's -3dB point, but here is what is happening:
> 
> Here is my subwoofer out's curve (with REW) without Audyssey engaged:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the Audyssey curve for the sub out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the two together, showing the relative levels of each:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, if I move the Audyssey trace down by 10dB, here's what we get:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, Audyssey DOES NOT apply any correction below my sub's -3dB point (around 20Hz), but to match the levels between Audyssey on and Audyssey off (so no large shifts in volume will occur when Audyssey is turned on or off), Audyssey increases the gain throughout the whole subwoofer band by 10dB. That 10dB boost in the nether regions is what caused my sub to complain, and I needed to add a 15Hz 24dB/octave highpass filter in front of the sub's amp to counteract it....but now it sounds wonderful. Unfortunately, with only one sub, really only one listening spot can be dead flat...
> 
> The same boost occurs in the lower registers of the main/center/surround speakers, so if you do not have capable 'satellites', Audyssey can make them complain if crossed too low. 10dB is 10x the power.
> 
> JSS


Hi JSS,

Sorry man, but none of your graphs appear in your post! :rubeyes:

* By the way, 10db is not 10 times the power, it is only a subjective figure. It's roughly about 3 times the power, ...I think. :scratchhead:


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Lordoftherings said:


> Hi JSS,
> 
> Sorry man, but none of your graphs appear in your post! :rubeyes:


How 'bout now? I think I was able to fix it.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## goonstopher

Would using a BFD on top of MultiEQ XT be overkill?

I plan on getting way more sub power than I need then using EQ to bring down any peak areas closer to any modes by possibly using Audyssey first then BFD or vice versa


----------



## cavchameleon

Lordoftherings said:


> Thanks Ray. I did work a bit with Mark for some of my own recommendations on that Guide.
> It is a very valuable source of great info on proper setup.
> Cool man.
> 
> Bob


Bob,

I do remember your contributions to it (thought I saw that pic before). Thanks! It's such a LOOOOOOG thread and the guide is a nice condensation of the highlights. Great job!

Ray


----------



## cavchameleon

goonstopher said:


> Would using a BFD on top of MultiEQ XT be overkill?
> 
> I plan on getting way more sub power than I need then using EQ to bring down any peak areas closer to any modes by possibly using Audyssey first then BFD or vice versa


It shouldn't be necessary (and actually may hurt the outcome) piggybacking one on the other. If you do decide to go that route, use BFD first as Audyssey corrects in the time domain and using BFD after would mess up the time domain corrections IMO.

Ray


----------



## warpdrive

Lordoftherings said:


> Hi JSS,
> 
> Sorry man, but none of your graphs appear in your post! :rubeyes:
> 
> * By the way, 10db is not 10 times the power, it is only a subjective figure. It's roughly about 3 times the power, ...I think. :scratchhead:


No, 10dB is exactly 10 times power but twice as loud subjectively
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## cavchameleon

warpdrive said:


> No, 10dB is exactly 10 times power but twice as loud subjectively
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's correct. It think it can be confusing to a lot. Probably lordoftherings was referring to the fact that it takes 10 time the power to increase the level by 3db (which sounds subjectively twice as much). Logarithmic scales can be confusing...

Ray


----------



## Lordoftherings

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> How 'bout now? I think I was able to fix it.
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


Nope, still nothing Wayne. :no: :waiting: 

Bob


----------



## Lordoftherings

cavchameleon said:


> That's correct. It think it can be confusing to a lot. Probably lordoftherings was referring to the fact that it takes 10 time the power to increase the level by 3db (which sounds subjectively twice as much). Logarithmic scales can be confusing...
> 
> Ray


Hi Ray,

Yeah, adding 3db is doubling the power. Example: If 100 watts is +20db, 200 watts is +23db.

* But true, all this is just very subjective when you're listening.
-> And if you really want to make 100 watts 10 times louder than what the volume level you're listening at;
...well, ...might is well dig a hole in the ground, and bury yourself in it. :explode: :bigsmile:

Bob


----------



## brucek

> Nope, still nothing Wayne.


OK, I downloaded them onto our site. This is always the best way to show pics.

Should be OK now.

brucek


----------



## Lordoftherings

brucek said:


> OK, I downloaded them onto our site. This is always the best way to show pics.
> 
> Should be OK now.
> 
> brucek


Ya, Thanks Brucek, got it now. :T

Bob


----------



## cavchameleon

Lordoftherings said:


> Hi Ray,
> 
> Yeah, adding 3db is doubling the power. Example: If 100 watts is +20db, 200 watts is +23db.
> 
> * But true, all this is just very subjective when you're listening.
> -> And if you really want to make 100 watts 10 times louder than what the volume level you're listening at;
> ...well, ...might is well dig a hole in the ground, and bury yourself in it. :explode: :bigsmile:
> 
> Bob


Yep! You're correct (multi-tasking and confused myself...):nerd:

Anyway, back on topic...


----------



## Lordoftherings

cavchameleon said:


> Yep! You're correct (multi-tasking and confused myself...):nerd:
> 
> Anyway, back on topic...


No sweat, we're right back on it; Audyssey MultEQ XT, I luv it. :T


----------



## cavchameleon

Lordoftherings said:


> No sweat, we're right back on it; Audyssey MultEQ XT, I luv it. :T


Me too!!!:bigsmile::clap:

Best auto setup out there (I would like to hear the Anthem, but it's way, way out of my price range). Everything just sounds so much clearer and more detailed with Audyssey IMO.

Ray


----------



## Andysu

eugovector said:


> What would everyone's opinion be, BFD first and then let Audyssey do it's thing, or Audyssey first and then let BFD get what Audyssey doesn't?


Why not a little bit of both to satisfy and get the task accomplished.

What I can’t and will not understand is why some AVR are cheap as chips that support the full Monty Audyseey and yet the standalone model cost many times more than the cheap AVR I don’t understand why they just don’t lower the price within the few hundred. That is realistic market price, not several thousands.

I’d sooner have module that can be used with existing old AVR/AVP otherwise I might as well stick with Behringer’s realistic marketing attitude, at least I can afford it.

On the positive side the frequency graphs are most impressive.:T



Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> The Radio Shack meter isn’t really “off;” it tracks the C-weighting scale, like it's supposed to. The problem is that we are often using it for something it wasn’t really designed for – determining frequency response rather than sound pressure levels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *C-Weighting Curve*​
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


Much in the same way we use the Behringer FBQ/DSP for EQ the sub bass or other.
Wayne, Is that graph of the Realistic analogue meter accurate.


----------



## Lordoftherings

Andysu said:


> Wayne, Is that graph of the Realistic analogue meter accurate.


Here's two links that might help.

1. @ http://www.audioxpress.com/magsdirx/ax/addenda/media/koya2811.pdf

2. @ http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/~tnaqvi/downloads/DOC/sd461_462/61689.pdf

Bob :T


----------



## corock

goonstopher said:


> Would using a BFD on top of MultiEQ XT be overkill?
> 
> I plan on getting way more sub power than I need then using EQ to bring down any peak areas closer to any modes by possibly using Audyssey first then BFD or vice versa


I'm in the same situation. I got a Denon 4308ci when they first came out and the Audyssey MultiEQ XT kills the bass in the lower levels, even when listening at reference level. I've taken several different mesurements to try and bring it back. I have a SVS PB13-U on the way and BFD 1124p. Goonstopher I was wondering if you've had a chance to try both scenarios...Audyssey then BFD vs BFD then Audyssey. If so which worked better in your opinion?


----------



## Jon Liu

I think that utilizing Audyssey's auto calibration and then using the BFD to fine-tune is a better idea.

Audyssey does a pretty good job at getting general peaks tamed, which makes it easier on the user and then after some of the work is already done for you, then manually fine tuning becomes a bit easier with the BFD.


----------



## brucek

> Audyssey then BFD vs BFD then Audyssey. If so which worked better in your opinion?


There's been lots of discussion about this, and it seems that Audyssey doesn't do as good a job when it has very large corrections to make. Many find that if they take care of the large peaks with the BFD and then let Audyssey smooth out what's left, appears to work best.

brucek


----------



## Jon Liu

hmmm exactly the opposite of what I experienced, but then that's not the first time that's happened either! 

I don't disagree and maybe it's just a matter of "try both ways and see if one way was better" for the user.


----------



## corock

Nothing is ever easy in this hobby. But now that I have my new PB13 I don't think I'll mind spending the time trying out all the different options. On a side note...anyone with a PS3 should download the "WET" demo. The little 5 second intro by developer Artificial Mind + Movement has absolutely SICK BASS!:scared:


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Maybe someone can help me out so's I won't have to dig through all 175 posts: Does Audyssey use a full-range signal for EQ settings, or a limited-band signal?

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Andysu

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Maybe someone can help me out so's I won't have to dig through all 175 posts: Does Audyssey use a full-range signal for EQ settings, or a limited-band signal?
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


Yeah I’m curious as to how many bands the device uses for each channel.

Maybe we should get one on loan and strip it apart to find out what makes it tick?


----------



## eugovector

Number of filters here: http://www.audyssey.com/technology/multeq/multeq-solutions.html

Also good info in the FAQ.


----------



## perritterd

Hello. Newbie here. I am having a issue with the quality of music I am getting out of my Atlantic Technologies 4200e speakers. I am running Audyssey on my Onkyo 876. The problem I am having is that it seems I need to jack up the volume on my speakers to about -25db to start getting any real quality sound from my speakers. After that , they sound fantastic! Unless I turn up the volume, they seem flat and the musical quality just isn't there at low volumes. Is this a byproduct of running Audyssey or just that my speakers need some juice to make them sound good? Is there a workaround with Audyssey to help compensate having to crank up the power to the speakers so that they start putting out really good sound at low volumes? 

Thanks for any assistance.
Bob.


----------



## eugovector

Lack of a particular frequency perhaps? Have you engaged Dynamic EQ?


----------



## Kal Rubinson

perritterd said:


> Hello. Newbie here. I am having a issue with the quality of music I am getting out of my Atlantic Technologies 4200e speakers. I am running Audyssey on my Onkyo 876. The problem I am having is that it seems I need to jack up the volume on my speakers to about -25db to start getting any real quality sound from my speakers. After that , they sound fantastic! Unless I turn up the volume, they seem flat and the musical quality just isn't there at low volumes. Is this a byproduct of running Audyssey or just that my speakers need some juice to make them sound good? Is there a workaround with Audyssey to help compensate having to crank up the power to the speakers so that they start putting out really good sound at low volumes?


It is hard to be certain about an unseen setup but I suspect that, with Audyssey, the boom of the room modes has been removed and that it contributed a low frequency boost that may have acted like a "loudness control." Now that the performance is more correctly flat, it is normal for it to sound right at reference levels and to seem a bit insipid at lower levels. That is a consequence of the ear's lower sensitivity for low frequencies at low levels.


----------



## Andysu

eugovector said:


> Number of filters here: http://www.audyssey.com/technology/multeq/multeq-solutions.html
> 
> Also good info in the FAQ.


Does this mean there are 256 EQ filter bands for the sub bass on the (MultEQ XT Sound Equalizer)?

Hmm, I’m slightly confused,:dontknow: but I catch do catch on. I'm trying to figure it out?

Oh,onder: I get it, 32 bands (per channel).

Is that is that all there is.

I’d sooner buy a Behreinger EQ for less money that can be (tailored into any custom made home cinema set-up) without costing silly amounts of money.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Andysu said:


> Does this mean there are 256 EQ filter bands for the sub bass on the (MultEQ XT Sound Equalizer)?


Nope. Note the x following each number indicating that all these are relative amounts. Audyssey does not release a fixed number since they maintain that their filter implementations are complex and not directly comparable to multiple PEQ filters.


----------



## Andysu

Kal Rubinson said:


> Nope. Note the x following each number indicating that all these are relative amounts. Audyssey does not release a fixed number since they maintain that their filter implementations are complex and not directly comparable to multiple PEQ filters.


Okay, so “their filter" is somewhat more complex. Well what about a diagram that shows, how each part of the sound chain, as well as the individual frequency filtering system for that product what really goes on beneath it.


My front matching LCR has issues as well as most others. I know what the issue is and how to solve it.

Front area has chimney breast that sticks out with a large gapping hole (gap) at the front left that needs to be blocked off sealed to give the illusion there’s a solid wall.

Otherwise there is loss between 70Hz - 80Hz that has huge dip. 

The low end should be as close to the centre with right being a bit higher because there is straight wall right beside it.

If I had this device I would place the LCR (side by side) and centred in the middle. Then run the (Audyssy EQ program) that should sort the low and most importantly the mid to high range for smoothness.

Hmm, I have an idea. I’ll post a new thread in few hours time, depending on how fast I can work at it.

Cheers Kal :sn:


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Andysu said:


> Okay, so “their filter" is somewhat more complex. Well what about a diagram that shows, how each part of the sound chain, as well as the individual frequency filtering system for that product what really goes on beneath it.





> My front matching LCR has issues as well as most others. I know what the issue is and how to solve it.
> 
> Front area has chimney breast that sticks out with a large gapping hole (gap) at the front left that needs to be blocked off sealed to give the illusion there’s a solid wall.
> 
> Otherwise there is loss between 70Hz - 80Hz that has huge dip.
> 
> The low end should be as close to the centre with right being a bit higher because there is straight wall right beside it.
> 
> If I had this device I would place the LCR (side by side) and centred in the middle. Then run the (Audyssy EQ program) that should sort the low and most importantly the mid to high range for smoothness.
> 
> Hmm, I have an idea. I’ll post a new thread in few hours time, depending on how fast I can work at it.
> 
> Cheers Kal :sn:


I do not see any direct connection between these two portions of the post. The former asks for information which Audyssey does not provide (unless you read the scientific papers of the developers). The second is a partly comprehensible description of setup issues with which Audyssey (and other tools) can help. Try it.


----------



## perritterd

Thanks for the response, Kal. Waiting on my new mic to show up and I plan on doing some new measurements. I know all speakers are different, but generally speaking, most of the diagrams I see as to using Audyssey, seem to have you point all your speakers directly at you or your sitting position and then run the audyssey setup. Is this correct or should you, say, open the speakers up somewhat to more fill the room with sound vs. just at your sitting location? 

Thanks for any help, Kal.
Bob.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

I would aim them at the prime listening position and allow Audyssey's room EQ to improve the "fill."


----------



## perritterd

Kal Rubinson said:


> I would aim them at the prime listening position and allow Audyssey's room EQ to improve the "fill."


Thaks Kal. I have them set that way


----------



## perritterd

Quick question for anyone-I've read in several web sites that you can use Audyssey Pro w/ the Onkyo 876-does anyone here know whether there is any truth to this or not-am I locked into using only the on-board audyssey for cal. my system? 

Thanks in advance.
Bob.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

I cannot see an option to buy the key for this model on the Audyssey Installer website. So, I guess not.


----------



## perritterd

Thanks Kal for checking that.
Bob.


----------



## laser188139

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Maybe someone can help me out so's I won't have to dig through all 175 posts: Does Audyssey use a full-range signal for EQ settings, or a limited-band signal?
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


Wayne, your question has so many facets. 

For its measurements, Audyssey uses repeated full range sweep tones. I suspect these are log sweeps, like REW's, only much faster. 

I thought I understood that it calculated the trim settings based on a band-limited view of the full measurement. But I've also read responses that a very high trim setting on a main speaker can indicate a blown tweeter, so apparently it looks at the full range to set the trim. 

It also performs a normalization step to try to ensure that Audyssey On appears to have the same level as Audyssey Off, when switching between the two. This acts like a band-limited calculation, 500Hz-2000Hz, but Chris has written that the algorithm is a little more complicated, taking place in the time domain instead of the frequency domain, so it is hard to identify an exact equivalent frequency range.


----------



## perritterd

If I am running Audyssey setup, where am I trying to set my SW at? Should the level be at "0" or as close to that as I can get or does it matter as long as it is between (+-) 12? Right now, I got my sub set to -1.5. Is this too low or should I maybe set the volume control a little higher? FYI, I do not have a good sub, but it does the job-I'm just trying to get the most out of what I have to work with!

Thanks in advance for any advice.
Bob


----------



## eugovector

Audyssey is should set your sub level in the AVR, and if it doesn't have to make a severe adjustment, say +/- 7db or more, you're fine. If you fall outside that range, just make the adjustment in the level on your subwoofer itself and recalibrate, or set the level with an SPL meter.

Where you're at is just fine.


----------



## perritterd

Thanks for the answer eugovector. Appreciate the help...

Bob.


----------



## perritterd

EDIT: trying to delete this post but it won't let me...! Sorry
Bob


----------



## perritterd

Ok-I've been to Audyssey website and have read many corroborating answers to Audyssey's recommendations here also. What I am unsure of is: 

1. -does turning down "Dy. Eq. Ref. Level Offset" mean setting Intellivolume to -10db if I'm listening simple rock/pop music w/CD? What about music on my HD tuner on my Onkyo 876-where are you supposed to set that- at: +-10db or +-15db? 
2. -what is "compressed dynamic range" music--mp3's? I know that compressed music is not considered a good thing!

Right now, if I understood correctly, I have set my "tuner" and "cab/sat" set to +10db, and DVD to 0db...is this correct? Am I doing what Audyssey recommends? If I need to make corrections to my settings, do I need to re-run audyssey?

Thanks for any help...
Bob.


----------



## laser188139

perritterd said:


> ...
> 1. -does turning down "Dy. Eq. Ref. Level Offset" mean setting Intellivolume to -10db if I'm listening simple rock/pop music w/CD? What about music on my HD tuner on my Onkyo 876-where are you supposed to set that- at: +-10db or +-15db? ...


Reference Level Offset is something I saw in the newer Denon, before I traded to last year's model. No, Intellivolume is not the same thing; it appears to be like Source Level in the Denon's. But you do have the right idea, that by setting Intellivolume to a negative value, e.g., -10dB, you will reduce the adjustment that DynEQ makes. Whatever sounds right to you with your CD player is probably a good value to use for your HD tuner, too. 



perritterd said:


> ...
> 2. -what is "compressed dynamic range" music--mp3's? I know that compressed music is not considered a good thing! ...


Compressed dynamic range, in this context, means something that was mastered such that the average level is nearer the peak levels. As seems to have happened frequently with rock albums when they were remastered from LPs to CDs. It is different from digital compression, which is what is usually meant by compressed music. 



perritterd said:


> ... Right now, if I understood correctly, I have set my "tuner" and "cab/sat" set to +10db, and DVD to 0db...is this correct? Am I doing what Audyssey recommends? If I need to make corrections to my settings, do I need to re-run audyssey? ...


My guess is that you want your Tuner like your CD player, so that you set a higher value on the master volume for the same absolute audio level, and thus reduce the affect of DynEQ. Personally, I leave my cable box at 0, just like my DVD player, as I usually watch movies even on cable. But there is no right answer for over-the-air or CD, as they are all mastered or broadcast a little differently. 

Cheers,
Bill


----------



## perritterd

laser188139 said:


> Reference Level Offset is something I saw in the newer Denon, before I traded to last year's model. No, Intellivolume is not the same thing; it appears to be like Source Level in the Denon's. But you do have the right idea, that by setting Intellivolume to a negative value, e.g., -10dB, you will reduce the adjustment that DynEQ makes. Whatever sounds right to you with your CD player is probably a good value to use for your HD tuner, too.
> 
> 
> 
> Compressed dynamic range, in this context, means something that was mastered such that the average level is nearer the peak levels. As seems to have happened frequently with rock albums when they were remastered from LPs to CDs. It is different from digital compression, which is what is usually meant by compressed music.
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you want your Tuner like your CD player, so that you set a higher value on the master volume for the same absolute audio level, and thus reduce the affect of DynEQ. Personally, I leave my cable box at 0, just like my DVD player, as I usually watch movies even on cable. But there is no right answer for over-the-air or CD, as they are all mastered or broadcast a little differently.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bill


Thanks for the info Bill. The more I think I understand audyssey, the less I know...:sarcastic:

Appreciate the help Bill.
Bob.


----------



## recruit

perritterd said:


> Thanks for the info Bill. The more I think I understand audyssey, the less I know...:sarcastic:
> 
> Appreciate the help Bill.
> Bob.


Audyssey is one of the best solutions on the market, and it so simple to use, after using many different types of EQ Audyssey seems to give me the best results for EQ'ing..


----------



## perritterd

recruit said:


> Audyssey is one of the best solutions on the market, and it so simple to use, after using many different types of EQ Audyssey seems to give me the best results for EQ'ing..


recruit, I am still a little confused. Audyssey website states that 0,10,15db adjustments are what you need to do for the various playback devices. Am I to infer that this is meant to be "ALL" positive adj.? If I make adj., audyssey will monitor these, so, do I need to do anything else (w/ audyssey)? Also, if I make a dist. adj. within my Onkyo 876 to a speaker that audyssey measured, is there any thing else that I have to do because of the adj. that I made? 

Appreciate the help, recruit...
Bob


----------



## laser188139

Bob, although you did not post a link, I suspect what you are looking at with references to 0, +10, +15 is Reference Level Offset, which is not the same as Intellivolume that you mentioned before. With Intellivolume, you are lowering the real audio level with negative offsets, causing you to compensate with a real volume control that is higher, and thus reducing the magnitude of the changes made by DynEQ. With Reference Level Offset, I think of it as a positive value added to the level of the current content before it is compared to reference level, thus reducing the magnitude of the changes made by DynEQ. 

If you search the audyssey thread on Intellivolume, you will see that everyone is talking about negative offsets to it. I do see some suggesting that the newer Onkyo models, like the newer Denon models, have Reference Level Offset. 

Bill


----------



## Ares

This is what Chris Kyriakakis of Audyssey has said 



> Movies are mixed in rooms calibrated for film reference. To achieve the same reference level in a home theater system each speaker level must be adjusted so that –30 dBFS band-limited (500 Hz – 2000 Hz) pink noise produces 75 dB sound pressure level at the listening position. A home theater system automatically calibrated by Audyssey MultEQ will play at reference level when the master volume control is set to the 0 dB position. At that level you can hear the mix at the same level the mixers heard it.
> 
> Audyssey Dynamic EQ is referenced to the standard film mix level. It makes adjustments to maintain the reference response and surround envelopment when the volume is turned down from 0 dB. However, film reference level is not always used in music or other non-film content. The Dynamic EQ Reference Level Offset provides three offsets from the film level reference (5 dB, 10 dB, and 15 dB) that can be selected when the mix level of the content is not within the standard.
> 
> 0 dB (Film Ref): This is the default setting and should be used when listening to movies.
> 
> 15 dB: Select this setting for pop/rock music or other program material that is mixed at very high listening levels and has a compressed dynamic range.
> 
> 10 dB: Select this setting for jazz or other music that has a wider dynamic range. This setting should also be selected for TV content as that is usually mixed at 10 dB below film reference.
> 
> 5 dB: Select this setting for content that has a very wide dynamic range, such as classical music.


and



> The Dynamic EQ reference offset is not reducing the level of the content. It is simply telling Dynamic EQ that the reference level is higher than that of film (by 5, 10, or 15 dB depending on the choice you make) and so Dynamic EQ applies less compensation than it would for film content.


----------



## perritterd

Ares said:


> This is what Chris Kyriakakis of Audyssey has said
> 
> and


John, Bill, & Tony...thanks for the reply. Sorry it took so long to get back to you guys but been out of town-went down to the Fla. Key's for a few days and just returned. I'll take some time and try and understand what you guys responded and see what I can do to get things right here.

Thanks again.
Bob.


----------



## perritterd

laser188139 said:


> Bob, although you did not post a link, I suspect what you are looking at with references to 0, +10, +15 is Reference Level Offset, which is not the same as Intellivolume that you mentioned before. With Intellivolume, you are lowering the real audio level with negative offsets, causing you to compensate with a real volume control that is higher, and thus reducing the magnitude of the changes made by DynEQ. With Reference Level Offset, I think of it as a positive value added to the level of the current content before it is compared to reference level, thus reducing the magnitude of the changes made by DynEQ.
> 
> If you search the audyssey thread on Intellivolume, you will see that everyone is talking about negative offsets to it. I do see some suggesting that the newer Onkyo models, like the newer Denon models, have Reference Level Offset.
> 
> Bill


Bill, I have the Onkyo 876 AVR...I have looked, but other that Intellivolume, I do not see a Ref. Level Offset for the Audyssey! I am going now to the manual and see if I can determine where and how to make this adjustment.

Bob.


----------



## sportflyer

*A bit confused what to do with DEf Tech BP2004 for Audyssey*

My Def Tech BP2004 fronts includes powered woofer/subwoofer . I use an external subwoofer . The Receiver subwoofer output is only connected to the Ext Subwoofer, so the Deftech BP2004 is functioning like a full range speaker. Do I leave the power connected to the BP2004 when performing the Audyssey setup? I am not even sure where to set the woofer/subwoofer gain of the DT Towers. Maybe I should do a freq sweep and adjust the woofer gain before starting Audyssey. Another thought was that maybe I should power off the BP2004 so the woofer is not active . The internal crossover freq is 80 hz per Def Tech , so this forces a small speaker config on the Audyssey ? Please advise I am confused.


----------



## pepar

*Re: A bit confused what to do with DEf Tech BP2004 for Audyssey*



sportflyer said:


> My Def Tech BP2004 fronts includes powered woofer/subwoofer . I use an external subwoofer . The Receiver subwoofer output is only connected to the Ext Subwoofer, so the Deftech BP2004 is functioning like a full range speaker. Do I leave the power connected to the BP2004 when performing the Audyssey setup? I am not even sure where to set the woofer/subwoofer gain of the DT Towers. Maybe I should do a freq sweep and adjust the woofer gain before starting Audyssey. Another thought was that maybe I should power off the BP2004 so the woofer is not active . The internal crossover freq is 80 hz per Def Tech , so this forces a small speaker config on the Audyssey ? Please advise I am confused.


For home theater, i.e. watching movies, there is no such thing as a large (or full range) speaker. Movies have content to and under 20Hz, and some have beastly content to and under 20Hz. I understand and follow the argument in favor of LARGE speakers for 2-ch music, but for movies and multi-channel audio crossovers should be somewhere around 80Hz. The sub handles the two (or so) lowest octaves, plus the sub channel has the highest resolution Audyssey filters and therefore is much more "in control" and able to correct room problems on that channel than any of the mains.

Yes, though, your system should be completely "on" when running setup including the separately powered "sub" section of the mains. If there is a separate gain control for the LF, you should balance them as closely as possible before running setup. 

Jeff


----------



## sportflyer

*Re: A bit confused what to do with DEf Tech BP2004 for Audyssey*



pepar said:


> For home theater, i.e. watching movies, there is no such thing as a large (or full range) speaker. Movies have content to and under 20Hz, and some have beastly content to and under 20Hz. I understand and follow the argument in favor of LARGE speakers for 2-ch music, but for movies and multi-channel audio crossovers should be somewhere around 80Hz. The sub handles the two (or so) lowest octaves, plus the sub channel has the highest resolution Audyssey filters and therefore is much more "in control" and able to correct room problems on that channel than any of the mains.
> 
> Yes, though, your system should be completely "on" when running setup including the separately powered "sub" section of the mains. If there is a separate gain control for the LF, you should balance them as closely as possible before running setup.
> 
> Jeff


Are you saying that I should set try and set the Mains sub level setting to as close as flat response as possible before running Audyssey setup?

Setting the sub levels of the mains means I will be using the Avia disk sub setting track and use a RS microphone. 
I know I will need to apply some correction to the SPL readings. The problem is that I dont know the range of freq of the warble tones that Avia puts out so I can apply the appropriate average correction for the range of warble tones.


----------



## pepar

*Re: A bit confused what to do with DEf Tech BP2004 for Audyssey*



sportflyer said:


> Are you saying that I should set try and set the Mains sub level setting to as close as flat response as possible before running Audyssey setup?


Well, admittedly, I have no experience with your speakers, but it just makes sense to get them as flat as possible to keep Audyssey's resources focused on correcting the _room_ as opposed to flattening the speaker. I'd be open to hearing an opinion as to why that might be wrong, if anyone feels that way.



> Setting the sub levels of the mains means I will be using the Avia disk sub setting track and use a RS microphone.
> 
> I know I will need to apply some correction to the SPL readings. The problem is that I dont know the range of freq of the warble tones that Avia puts out so I can apply the appropriate average correction for the range of warble tones.


Sounds like the beginning of a plan to me, just be aware that measuring the low frequencies, moving the measurement mic a few inches can produce a wide range of reading. Does the speaker manufacturer have a recommended method of balancing the speakers?

FWIW, there are downloadable ISOs of test CDs that use steady state tones ... unless I misunderstand what "warble tones" means... :scratch:

Jeff


----------



## sportflyer

By warble tones I mean its not steady single freq tone. It sounds like some form of low freq band limited random tones . Well I can use my old BSR EQ that has a mic input and a freq spectrum display to determine the range of the warble tones then I can use an average correction number for the RS SPL. 

BTW as I understand the RS SPL meter , it is drooping at the low freq so it under reads the actual SPL . So if I want to set actual SPL to say 75db at 20Hz , then I should adjust output of the sub so it reads 75-7.5 = 67.5DB assuming correction factor is 7.5db . But if its a warble tone then for simplicity I should use an average correction factor for the band of tones.


----------



## pepar

sportflyer said:


> By warble tones I mean its not steady single freq tone. It sounds like some form of low freq band limited random tones . Well I can use my old BSR EQ that has a mic input and a freq spectrum display to determine the range of the warble tones then I can use an average correction number for the RS SPL.
> 
> BTW as I understand the RS SPL meter , it is drooping at the low freq so it under reads the actual SPL . So if I want to set actual SPL to say 75db at 20Hz , then I should adjust output of the sub so it reads 75-7.5 = 67.5DB assuming correction factor is 7.5db . But if its a warble tone then for simplicity I should use an average correction factor for the band of tones.


I know that there are corrections that can be added to the RS meter's reading, but I *think* that I remember reading somewhere that there are multiple correction tables "out there."  

If you want to up your game a few notches, look into buying a calibrated mic and using the free software, REW.

Good luck!

Jeff


----------



## sportflyer

I finally purchased an Onkyo NR 3007 so now reading up carefully on how to calibrate with Audyssey. The recommended procedure seems to set the subwoofer level first by making one pass with Audyssey using only the main listening position , then check where the Receiver has set the subwoofer trim. Then adjust the subwoofer gain so that the Receiver sub trim is + /- 3db before running the whole 8 position EQ . My question is which part of the OSD menu can I view this ? ie is there a similar function to Denons " Display Parameter" ? 

Tks



Thanks


----------



## Kal Rubinson

sportflyer said:


> I finally purchased an Onkyo NR 3007 so now reading up carefully on how to calibrate with Audyssey. The recommended procedure seems to set the subwoofer level first by making one pass with Audyssey using only the main listening position , then check where the Receiver has set the subwoofer trim. Then adjust the subwoofer gain so that the Receiver sub trim is + /- 3db before running the whole 8 position EQ . My question is which part of the OSD menu can I view this ? ie is there a similar function to Denons " Display Parameter" ?


Yes. Under speaker settings.


----------



## pepar

sportflyer said:


> I finally purchased an Onkyo NR 3007 so now reading up carefully on how to calibrate with Audyssey. The recommended procedure seems to set the subwoofer level first by making one pass with Audyssey using only the main listening position , then check where the Receiver has set the subwoofer trim. Then adjust the subwoofer gain so that the Receiver sub trim is + /- 3db before running the whole 8 position EQ . My question is which part of the OSD menu can I view this ? ie is there a similar function to Denons " Display Parameter" ?


Some are hung up on getting the trim close to zero, but really it is only necessary to get it "off" of the max boost or cut setting. For some kit, that is +/-12dB and for others +/-15dB.

Jeff


----------



## sportflyer

Thanks very much for replies. I am anxiously awaiting for arrival of the new Receiver. 

I believe I am not far off the mark re the subwoofer level setting . It now just shy of the 1/2 way point when I used the SPL meter + Avia 2 to match my speakers . The HK AVR 7200 subwoofer setting is at -1 db


----------



## pepar

sportflyer said:


> Thanks very much for replies. I am anxiously awaiting for arrival of the new Receiver.
> 
> I believe I am not far off the mark re the subwoofer level setting . It now just shy of the 1/2 way point when I used the SPL meter + Avia 2 to match my speakers . The HK AVR 7200 subwoofer setting is at -1 db


The recommendation is to start with the sub's volume control at "half" and go from there if needed. You should also bypass, defeat or otherwise "get out of the way" any onboard filters, phase controls and/or equalization. On some subs there is an "LFE input" that does that, while others require controls to be set to off, zero, etc. to accomplish it.

Jeff


----------



## sportflyer

I finally ran Audyssey and have some strange results wrt Main speaker xo. Everything else is fine. I am not sure its proper to start discussions in 2 threads . I posted the results in reply # 52 in the "Onkyo NR 1007/3007/5007 "Thread. Basically Audyssey set my main speakers xo to 150HZ ( totally unexpected) and all other speakers were at 40 HZ which is fine. . I am surprised at the 150hz xo because my main speakers can go much lower than that. Perhaps I set the powered woofer gain for the main speakers too low before running Audyssey ? I dont think its proper to lower the xo to 80hz post Audyssey . Maybe I should run Audyssey again with woofer level up , just for 3 positions to check before running the whole 8 position ?


----------



## pepar

sportflyer said:


> I finally ran Audyssey and have some strange results wrt Main speaker xo. Everything else is fine. I am not sure its proper to start discussions in 2 threads . I posted the results in reply # 52 in the "Onkyo NR 1007/3007/5007 "Thread. Basically Audyssey set my main speakers xo to 150HZ ( totally unexpected) and all other speakers were at 40 HZ which is fine. . I am surprised at the 150hz xo because my main speakers can go much lower than that. Perhaps I set the powered woofer gain for the main speakers too low before running Audyssey ? I dont think its proper to lower the xo to 80hz post Audyssey . Maybe I should run Audyssey again with woofer level up , just for 3 positions to check before running the whole 8 position ?


Actually, the manufacturer's guidelines sets the crossovers based on the measurements done by Audyssey. But that's not really the answer you're seeking. The real answer may not be any more satisfying; your speakers' in-room response only supported a crossover of 150Hz. Manufacturers' specs are rarely real world. Having said that, look at where the speakers are placed. Could you move them closer to a wall? Could something be wrong with them? 

Jeff


----------



## sportflyer

pepar said:


> Actually, the manufacturer's guidelines sets the crossovers based on the measurements done by Audyssey. But that's not really the answer you're seeking. The real answer may not be any more satisfying; your speakers' in-room response only supported a crossover of 150Hz. Manufacturers' specs are rarely real world. Having said that, look at where the speakers are placed. Could you move them closer to a wall? Could something be wrong with them?
> 
> Jeff


My fault actually. I set the main speakers' woofer amplifier gain too low . I increased the internal amp gain to about 11 oclock setting and reran Audyssey. It now detecting the main speakers' xo at 40 hz along with the other speakers. So all is fine. I then manually adjusted all the xo to 80 hz using the Rcvrs speaker config menu. So all is fine now.


----------



## pepar

sportflyer said:


> My fault actually. I set the main speakers' woofer amplifier gain too low . I increased the internal amp gain to about 11 oclock setting and reran Audyssey. It now detecting the main speakers' xo at 40 hz along with the other speakers. So all is fine. I then manually adjusted all the xo to 80 hz using the Rcvrs speaker config menu. So all is fine now.


Does the speaker manufacturer give you any guidance on how to match the woofer with the rest of the speaker? That would seem to be something easily screwed up.

Jeff


----------



## sportflyer

pepar said:


> Does the speaker manufacturer give you any guidance on how to match the woofer with the rest of the speaker? That would seem to be something easily screwed up.
> 
> Jeff


The only instructions I have is in the speaker manual which says that I should set the woofer gain to about 10 oclock . Which is what I did before the second set of measurements.

BTW is there a way to view the equaliser settings made by Audyssey ?


----------



## Kal Rubinson

sportflyer said:


> The only instructions I have is in the speaker manual which says that I should set the woofer gain to about 10 oclock .


I consider that pretty irresponsible of the manufacturer to not provide more guidance on this. 



> BTW is there a way to view the equaliser settings made by Audyssey ?


Not usually.


----------



## pepar

sportflyer said:


> The only instructions I have is in the speaker manual which says that I should set the woofer gain to about 10 oclock . Which is what I did before the second set of measurements.
> 
> BTW is there a way to view the equaliser settings made by Audyssey ?


Your kit might have a feature to view equalizer settings, but it is so crude compared to what Audyssey is really doing that it is virtually worthless. Plus part of what Audyssey does is in the time domain and that can't be visualized. Pardon my spelling. :laugh:

Jeff


----------



## sportflyer

I find that the bass is very boomy after Audyssey . I had to set the Audyssey Preference Offset to 10db to tame it. This was with TV programs . At first thought it was due to "double bass" but that option was grayed out ...maybe its automatically grayed out when I set the xo to 80Hz for the main speakers? Anyway I still need to test whether the bass is "boomy " with a movie on DVD.


----------



## pepar

sportflyer said:


> I find that the bass is very boomy after Audyssey . I had to set the Audyssey Preference Offset to 10db to tame it. This was with TV programs . At first thought it was due to "double bass" but that option was grayed out ...maybe its automatically grayed out when I set the xo to 80Hz for the main speakers? Anyway I still need to test whether the bass is "boomy " with a movie on DVD.


It sounds like you are referring to Audyssey *D*ynamic *EQ*. That is designed to the standard for cinema reference level. It is not unusual for other sources to be wrong, and using the offset is exactly what they recommend to align the non-cinema source to the standard used by DEQ.

I'll be very surprised is a movie sounds anything but _.. just .. right_. :T

Jeff


----------



## sportflyer

Yes movies sounds fine without the 10db offset . Most of the time its the TV commercials that cause overly bass heavy without the 10 db offset. I think I will leave the 10db offset on as default since most of the time we are watching TV . I will remove it when watching movies . Actually the bass is still very good on movies with the 10db offset , not so much rumbling but I feel tighter bass . However I normally do not play movies at reference levels. ( loud but not at reference levels ). I dont envisage many people playing at reference levels at home most of the time except when testing or showing off to friends .


----------



## Hakka

pepar said:


> Your kit might have a feature to view equalizer settings, but it is so crude compared to what Audyssey is really doing that it is virtually worthless. Plus part of what Audyssey does is in the time domain and that can't be visualized. Pardon my spelling. :laugh:
> 
> Jeff


I compared the Denon 3808 audyssey graphs to REW a while back, the frequency response is pretty close.











As you said though there is a lot more going on with Audyssey than frequency response.


----------



## sportflyer

Audyssey is pretty good at what its supposed to do  Obviously the time domain tweaks that it does will not be seen in a freq response curve. Perhaps it may be more apparent in a waterfall graph. TKs


----------



## pepar

sportflyer said:


> Audyssey is pretty good at what its supposed to do  Obviously the time domain tweaks that it does will not be seen in a freq response curve. Perhaps it may be more apparent in a waterfall graph. TKs


Yes, it is most noticeable for me in waterfalls at the lower frequencies.

Jeff


----------



## sportflyer

pepar said:


> Yes, it is most noticeable for me in waterfalls at the lower frequencies.
> 
> Jeff


Looks like I am a candidate to give REW and BFD a try !


----------



## pepar

sportflyer said:


> Looks like I am a candidate to give REW and BFD a try !


For the _relatively_ small amount of money you have to shell out for a calibrated mic and *maybe* a USB sound "card", you gain so much in the way of being able to analyze your room and system.

If you haven't guessed it yet, you will be spending some TIME reading the help files. 

Jeff


----------



## sportflyer

pepar said:


> For the _relatively_ small amount of money you have to shell out for a calibrated mic and *maybe* a USB sound "card", you gain so much in the way of being able to analyze your room and system.
> 
> If you haven't guessed it yet, you will be spending some TIME reading the help files.
> 
> Jeff


I have been reading the REW Help files in anticipation of what I am intending to do.

My main concen is whether its worth messing around with it since Audyssey seems to do a pretty fine job . Unfortunately my Engineering training prompts to analyze and fix  !

I already downloaded and installed the REW files as well as the RS SPL meter correction .cal file.

I would definitely need a USB Soundcard for my laptop so I plan to use the UCA 202 before I can start any measurements. 

Unfortunately I will be traveling for a month so nothing can be done for the time being. 

I thought that since I am going to buy the UCA 202 from Parts Express , I might as well get the DSP1124P at the same time. But I am wondering whether adding this additional SUB EQ would make a significant improvement over just Audyssey MultiEQ XT alone.


----------



## pepar

sportflyer said:


> I have been reading the REW Help files in anticipation of what I am intending to do.
> 
> My main concen is whether its worth messing around with it since Audyssey seems to do a pretty fine job . Unfortunately my Engineering training prompts to analyze and fix  !


Or at least analyze and verify. Beyond that, the better the room is already, the more noticeable the improvements from Audyssey. Acoustical treatments are still recommended, and REW will help with planning those.



> I thought that since I am going to buy the UCA 202 from Parts Express , I might as well get the DSP1124P at the same time. But I am wondering whether adding this additional SUB EQ would make a significant improvement over just Audyssey MultiEQ XT alone.


Huge difference in my room. And then I applied a Pro calibration over that and got another bump in performance. The Pro calibration is pretty much guaranteed to improve your system. The AS-EQ1 is a benefit if you have two subs and/or a "difficult" room. My room is difficult _and_ I have two (collocated pairs of) subs. SVS does have a 45-day return policy.

Jeff


----------



## sportflyer

I did apply some acoustic treatments to my family room ...basically I added DIY bass traps at the front corners and at the real wall. These tamed some of the room resonances. I do have a very asymmetrical listening area because one side of the family room is a full wall with fireplace etc, the other side is totally open to the kitchen area . The family room is approx 10' X 21 ' but one side opens to the Kitchen + nook area which is 21'X 27' both areas with 9ft ceilings. 

Actually I am surprised how much bass the cylindrical SVS NSD 12 puts out with such a huge volume !

Anyway did you EQ the subwoofer on its own , then apply Audyssey on top of it ? By this I mean switch off Audyssey , EQ the sub , then redo Audyssey with the equalized SUB .


----------



## pepar

sportflyer said:


> I did apply some acoustic treatments to my family room ...basically I added DIY bass traps at the front corners and at the real wall. These tamed some of the room resonances. I do have a very asymmetrical listening area because one side of the family room is a full wall with fireplace etc, the other side is totally open to the kitchen area . The family room is approx 10' X 21 ' but one side opens to the Kitchen + nook area which is 21'X 27' both areas with 9ft ceilings.
> 
> Actually I am surprised how much bass the cylindrical SVS NSD 12 puts out with such a huge volume !
> 
> Anyway did you EQ the subwoofer on its own , then apply Audyssey on top of it ? By this I mean switch off Audyssey , EQ the sub , then redo Audyssey with the equalized SUB .


Yes, when SVS changed their recommendation on the method to use with MultEQ XT in my pre/pro, I redid the calibration with it "over" the AS-EQ1. Then I purchased an Audyssey Pro Kit and also ran that calibration over the AS-EQ1.

Audyssey in the processor/receiver does not need to be turned off to set up the AS-EQ1. In fact, no processor/receiver settings affect setting up the AS-EQ1.

Jeff


----------



## perritterd

Hi...just a quick question. I moved my "CHEAP" Sony SA-WMS230 SW to in front of my HT sys. I ran Audyssey before and the setting for the SW was 120hz. After moving the SW, the new Audyssey reading was 80hz. (THX). My Atlantic Tech. speakers are all THX Selects. I guess my question is, by setting my SW to 80hz, does it remove any "headroom" for my Atlantic Tech. speakers? I mean, they absolutely recommend a SW to take over for the speakers at 80hz. Does setting this "sub-par" speaker to 80hz, as Audyssey did, eliminate any headroom for the At. Tech. speakers to operate or should I adjust the SW speaker from 80hz to something else?

Thanks for any assistance.
Bob.


----------



## pepar

perritterd said:


> Hi...just a quick question. I moved my "CHEAP" Sony SA-WMS230 SW to in front of my HT sys. I ran Audyssey before and the setting for the SW was 120hz. After moving the SW, the new Audyssey reading was 80hz. (THX). My Atlantic Tech. speakers are all THX Selects. I guess my question is, by setting my SW to 80hz, does it remove any "headroom" for my Atlantic Tech. speakers? I mean, they absolutely recommend a SW to take over for the speakers at 80hz. Does setting this "sub-par" speaker to 80hz, as Audyssey did, eliminate any headroom for the At. Tech. speakers to operate or should I adjust the SW speaker from 80hz to something else?
> 
> Thanks for any assistance.
> Bob.


Clarification please, Bob. Subwoofers don't have crossovers. The 120 thingy is the low pass filter (LPF) on the low frequency effects (LFE) channel. It should *always* be set to 120Hz.

The 80Hz (THX) is a crossover. The sub has no effect on where the crossovers are determined to be.

Now, what was the question? 

Jeff


----------



## eugovector

Actually, subwoofers do have crossovers. The frequency knob on the back of most subs, that's a built-in crossover. Now, that can often be bypassed by using a "LFE" input.

In bob's case, his sub does not have a variable crossover, just a 200HZ filter that can not be bypassed. So, LFE effects are sent to the sub, but if he has his speakers on small, he has another crossover at work, the one built into the AVR.

Pepar is correct though that the LFE channel is unaffected by crossover setting in the AVR, and is 120HZ and below (but is affected by the built in crossover in the sub, if not bypassed).

Bob, if your mains can go down to 80, leave them there.


----------



## perritterd

pepar said:


> Clarification please, Bob. Subwoofers don't have crossovers. The 120 thingy is the low pass filter (LPF) on the low frequency effects (LFE) channel. It should *always* be set to 120Hz.
> 
> The 80Hz (THX) is a crossover. The sub has no effect on where the crossovers are determined to be.
> 
> Now, what was the question?
> 
> Jeff


Hi Jeff...You are right about there not being a crossover for the sw. I guess I have gotten confused "AGAIN"!!...:hissyfit:the LPF was set by Audyssey to 80 hz. I know I have read and was recommended by individuals here in the Audyssey thread, to set my LPF to 80hz., that most people here do do that! Now, I am confused, completely! Why would I not set the sw to the setting that Audyssey set it for-my AT. Tech speakers? They absolutely recommended a sw for these speakers that will only go to 80hz. And, why should I set it up for 120hz. if Audyssey didn't? 

Please forgive my ignorance about SW setup-I am trying to learn "ON THE FLY", if you get my meaning

Thanks for the assistance and help
Bob


----------



## eugovector

Audyssey should have set the appropriate crossover based on performance of your mains and subs. If moving your subwoofer changed the setting, it's likely because you introduced a lot of problems in the sub's reproduction of 80-120hz. The reason 80 is recommended over 120 is that above 80, frequencies become increasingly localizable, i.e. you can tell their coming from the sub in the corner instead of the speakers by the display.


----------



## pepar

perritterd said:


> Hi Jeff...You are right about there not being a crossover for the sw. I guess I have gotten confused "AGAIN"!!...:hissyfit:the LPF was set by Audyssey to 80 hz. I know I have read and was recommended by individuals here in the Audyssey thread, to set my LPF to 80hz., that most people here do do that! Now, I am confused, completely! Why would I not set the sw to the setting that Audyssey set it for-my AT. Tech speakers? They absolutely recommended a sw for these speakers that will only go to 80hz. And, why should I set it up for 120hz. if Audyssey didn't?
> 
> Please forgive my ignorance about SW setup-I am trying to learn "ON THE FLY", if you get my meaning
> 
> Thanks for the assistance and help
> Bob


Audyssey shouldn't be setting the LPF on LFE, but anyway it should always be 120Hz. Why? Because there is content on the LFE channel. (It's the "point one" in 5.1/7.1.) I'm pretty sure that no one on the Audyssey thread has ever recommended that the LPF on LFE be 80Hz. Crossovers on the mains to 80Hz probably. It is very confusing, for sure.


----------



## perritterd

eugovector said:


> Audyssey should have set the appropriate crossover based on performance of your mains and subs. If moving your subwoofer changed the setting, it's likely because you introduced a lot of problems in the sub's reproduction of 80-120hz. The reason 80 is recommended over 120 is that above 80, frequencies become increasingly localizable, i.e. you can tell their coming from the sub in the corner instead of the speakers by the display.


Thanks for the help evgovector...so, what should I do :huh: ignore Audyssey's recommendation? Please forgive me, but this is where I am having problems...people swear by audyssey but then I read recommendations about not following what audyssey recommends...I am truly confused with this situation! What do you suggest I do w/setting my SW LPF?

Bob


----------



## pepar

eugovector said:


> The reason 80 is recommended over 120 is that above 80, frequencies become increasingly localizable, i.e. you can tell their coming from the sub in the corner instead of the speakers by the display.


This is highly dependent on how well the mains and sub(s) are timbre-matched at the splice. To a lesser extent, it depends on the individual. My mains are THX certified, but I have them crossed at 100Hz and there is zero localization that I or any of the home theater enthusiasts that visit can detect.

Jeff


----------



## pepar

perritterd said:


> Thanks for the help evgovector...so, what should I do :huh: ignore Audyssey's recommendation? Please forgive me, but this is where I am having problems...people swear by audyssey but then I read recommendations about not following what audyssey recommends...I am truly confused with this situation! What do you suggest I do w/setting my SW LPF?
> 
> Bob


Bob, I really don't think Audyssey set the LPF. More likely it was already set and Audyssey didn't change it.

Re the crossovers - actually Audyssey does NOT set them either. Audyssey passes the measured data to the receiver/processor and the crossovers are determined by the manufacturer's criteria. Receiver/processor manufacturers should stick to making receivers and processors. Regardless of what my mains were, I would never cross them below 80Hz and I might even go higher.

The sub channel's filters are of much higher resolution than the mains and are therefore more able to deal with low frequency room problems. So the more of those frequencies that go to the sub channel, the better behaved the room will be. Plus, crossing over at a higher frequency takes load off of the main channel amps.

Jeff


----------



## perritterd

pepar said:


> Bob, I really don't think Audyssey set the LPF. More likely it was already set and Audyssey didn't change it.
> 
> Re the crossovers - actually Audyssey does NOT set them either. Audyssey passes the measured data to the receiver/processor and the crossovers are determined by the manufacturer's criteria. Receiver/processor manufacturers should stick to making receivers and processors. Regardless of what my mains were, I would never cross them below 80Hz and I might even go higher.
> 
> Jeff


You are probably right Jeff...I now seem to remember setting it to 80hz. because I had several people recommend this to me (because most people here in the Audyssey forum uses 80hz:dontknow this was the suggestion that I follow...you obviously sound like someone with quite a bit of knowledge! Based on the fact that I have THX Select speakers, where would you recommend I set my LPF of my SW to? 

Thanks, 
Bob.


----------



## pepar

perritterd said:


> You are probably right Jeff...I now seem to remember setting it to 80hz. because I had several people recommend this to me (because most people here in the Audyssey forum uses 80hz:dontknow this was the suggestion that I follow...you obviously sound like someone with quite a bit of knowledge! Based on the fact that I have THX Select speakers, where would you recommend I set my LPF of my SW to?
> 
> Thanks,
> Bob.


LPF on the receiver/processor = always 120Hz. LPF on the sub = bypassed, OFF or as high as the adjustment will allow.

Crossovers can be 80Hz.

Jeff


----------



## perritterd

My whole purpose in doing all of this was to get rid of the "BOOMING" of the SW...I definitely help by moving the SW...now, I have ordered the 1124, Xenyx 502, and a Micropower PS400 phantom powr supply!! Next, when the wife finds out, the pain begins!!!

Bob


----------



## pepar

perritterd said:


> My whole purpose in doing all of this was to get rid of the "BOOMING" of the SW...I definitely help by moving the SW...now, I have ordered the 1124, Xenyx 502, and a Micropower PS400 phantom powr supply!! Next, when the wife finds out, the pain begins!!!


Yes, subwoofer positioning is at the top of the list of things that should be done to achieve the flattest inroom subwoofer response. And it's _free_.

Jeff


----------



## sportflyer

pepar said:


> Or at least analyze and verify. Beyond that, the better the room is already, the more noticeable the improvements from Audyssey. Acoustical treatments are still recommended, and REW will help with planning those.
> 
> 
> Huge difference in my room. And then I applied a Pro calibration over that and got another bump in performance. The Pro calibration is pretty much guaranteed to improve your system. The AS-EQ1 is a benefit if you have two subs and/or a "difficult" room. My room is difficult _and_ I have two (collocated pairs of) subs. SVS does have a 45-day return policy.
> 
> Jeff


You mention AS- EQ1 . From reading their literature, this unit is much different from REW EQ . It does both time and freq corrections vs freq only for REW . AS- EQ1 seems like a more powerful version of MultiEQ XT specifically directed at the base frequencies. A lot more expensive though !


----------



## pepar

sportflyer said:


> You mention AS- EQ1 . From reading their literature, this unit is much different from REW EQ . It does both time and freq corrections vs freq only for REW . AS- EQ1 seems like a more powerful version of MultiEQ XT specifically directed at the base frequencies. A lot more expensive though !


You probably know that those are two different things; the AS-EQ1 is an "equalizer" and REW is acoustical analysis software. With the waterfall graph feature, REW can show the effects of the AS-EQ1's "time correction."

Yes, it is exactly a more powerful version of the built in Audyssey software. And being a dedicated, standalone device, it has all of the additional costs associated with dedicated hardware. But cleaning up LF room problems can make a huge improvement of the entire frequency range - low to high. As resonances are reduced/eliminated, detail is revealed that had been masked.

Jeff


----------



## Kal Rubinson

sportflyer said:


> It does both time and freq corrections vs freq only for REW .


Not so. REW also does time corrections. First, because all freq/amplitude changes inevitably imply time changes, as well. Second, because the recommended filters are calculated to reduce ringing at the appropriate frequencies. All you need is the hardware/firmware to implement those filters.


----------



## pepar

Kal Rubinson said:


> Not so. REW also does time corrections. First, because all freq/amplitude changes inevitably imply time changes, as well. Second, because the recommended filters are calculated to reduce ringing at the appropriate frequencies. All you need is the hardware/firmware to implement those filters.


Are you referring to REW's ability to create filters for devices like the BFD or SMS-1? 

Jeff

doh! how do i delete this???

*Response from Mod: Do you mean delete the post? Just edit everything out and write "PLEASE DELETE". The mods will take care of the rest.*


----------



## Kal Rubinson

pepar said:


> Are you referring to REW's ability to create filters for devices like the BFD or SMS-1?


Among others, yes.


----------



## sportflyer

pepar said:


> Are you referring to REW's ability to create filters for devices like the BFD or SMS-1?
> 
> Jeff
> 
> doh! how do i delete this???
> 
> *Response from Mod: Do you mean delete the post? Just edit everything out and write "PLEASE DELETE". The mods will take care of the rest.*


Sorry for asking this question : How does one edit a post ? I cant find an Edit button


----------



## pepar

sportflyer said:


> Sorry for asking this question : How does one edit a post ? I cant find an Edit button


If you are logged on and looking at one of your posts, it will be in the lower right.


----------



## sportflyer

I dont see an edit on mine . I am missing one button between Runes and Quote !


----------



## pepar

sportflyer said:


> I dont see an edit on mine . I am missing one button between Runes and Quote !


Very odd. Scroll up and see that it says "Welcome, sportflyer." All I can think is that you are not logged on. But that makes no sense because you are posting... :dontknow:


----------



## Kal Rubinson

sportflyer said:


> I dont see an edit on mine . I am missing one button between Runes and Quote !


Wow. I don't have runes on mine, just the usual character set. :innocent:


----------



## sportflyer

Typo  but seriously , any idea how to fix the missing Edit button.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

sportflyer said:


> Typo  but seriously , any idea how to fix the missing Edit button.


Honestly, no. It always seems to be there when I need it.

Kal


----------



## waldo563

I have posted some before and after MultEQ graphs:

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/home-theater-receivers-processors-amps/8920-audyssey-graphs-please-post-your-results-8.html#post267329

I have read a lot of good things about Audyssey but, to be honest, I have not been impressed when enabled on my TX-SR606, AVR-1910, and now on my TX-NR807.
Although it didn't seem to be a significant improvement with my 2 previous AVRs, with the 807 I seem to be experiencing what seems to be a degradation in the FR.
It appears that Audyssey MultEQ is introducing some harmonics or oscillations in the bass range. I have tried different mic placements, different combinations of quantity and location, sub location, various setting changes such as Border Compensation, Loudness, Dynamic EQ, and the only thing that seems to smooth out the FR graph is to turn off Audyssey completely.
The oscillations are more apparent with the unsmoothed graphs at the following post:

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/home-theater-receivers-processors-amps/8920-audyssey-graphs-please-post-your-results-8.html#post267332

I was just wondering if anybody has seen this before or had any suggestions. I hope it does turn out to be something I'm doing wrong because I would really like to use this feature but at this point it does not seem to be beneficial to me.
Thanks in advance.


----------



## laser188139

Lester, would you like to elaborate on your setup? 

Are the two subs co-located? Or are the symmetric at the same distance from the measurement point? How did you level set them to each other? 

It appears your graphs are for two front speakers together. Is that true? 

Are the mains set full-range or small? What is the crossover freq? 

What microphone did you use to take your measurement? 

Bill


----------



## waldo563

laser188139 said:


> Lester, would you like to elaborate on your setup?
> 
> Are the two subs co-located? Or are the symmetric at the same distance from the measurement point? How did you level set them to each other?
> 
> It appears your graphs are for two front speakers together. Is that true?
> 
> Are the mains set full-range or small? What is the crossover freq?
> 
> What microphone did you use to take your measurement?
> 
> Bill


Bill,

They are equi-distant from the LP near the front corners of the room approximately 1 ft from the front wall and 1.5 ft from the side walls. I have the gain knobs at the same position but you bring up a good point that they may not be level set.
Both front speakers are represented along with both subs.
Mains are set to 80Hz.
I used the Radio Shack 33-4050 meter.
Thanks for the quick reply.

Lester


----------



## waldo563

I think I may have found the problem I was having with the Onkyo TX-NR807 MultEQ setup. It seems to be related to having the gain on my SVS subs too high resulting in Audyssey setting too much cut for the LFE channel. I'm not sure what is causing it but I suspect it's because the LFE signal is too low and for some reason MultEQ is having a problem dealing with it. Once I turned the sub gain to about 3 o'clock such that MultEQ set the LFE channel to about -3.5/4.0dB, the FR graph smoothed out.
I'm not sure if this is specific to the 807 AVR but it may be a good idea to adjust the sub gain so that the LFE channel is closer to 0dB if you run into a similar issue.


----------



## laser188139

Cool. I had not yet thought of that possibility. As suggested in the online Audyssey setup guide, you certainly want to check that the sub trim after setup is not at either of the two limits. I think the lower limit for the Onkyo is -15dB for the sub. Being a little on the negative side does help avoid issues of possible clipping in the final output stage of the receiver or input stage of the sub amp. 

I asked about the meter because of the peak between 6kHz and 7kHz and the rapid fall off above that. That made me question the measurements up there, which makes sense if you are using the RS meter. 

Something about the rest of the main curves feels like comb filtering between the two identical sources. Especially the large dip between 2kHz and 3kHz in the DynEQ graph. Audyssey creates a small dip around 2kHz but not as large as you show. So that is either a measurement issue with the meter, or interference between the two speakers. You could probably tell the difference by testing them separately, plugging the computer output into just the left channel and just the right channel and comparing the two measurements to your Audyssey Off curves. (I made this mistake, too, early on when I was measuring my room. I would decide a particular configuration was worse, seeing the wavy behavior at the top end, when in fact these were probably better, the mic was just seeing the two speakers beating against each other at some frequencies.)

Your bass curves have that same wavy appearance of interference, after Audyssey, but low frequencies aren't supposed to work that way because of their longer wavelengths. And phasing should not be a problem if they are equidistant. So I thought of two more possibilities. 

One is that Audyssey is seeing room resonances and trying to reduce these by reducing the input levels. This would introduce waves in the frequency response graphs, while making the decays in the waterfall graph better. 

The second is that you may have used BFD to effectively fill-in nulls in the frequency response at your listening position. This made your initial frequency response appear better, when measured at that one point. But Audyssey is looking at all the points in the listening bubble. If your BFD corrections made the response worse at the other listening positions, Audyssey might be trying to undo these to give the most smooth response over the six or eight positions you measured. (It is time consuming to do, but one time I took full measures of Audyssey Off and On, sub only, left only, right only at each of my eight measurement positions. Indeed, at some of the points where I thought Audyssey was making nulls in the response worse, these were peaks at other points, I just wasn't hearing these in my chair.) When you made your BFD adjustments, did you look just at a single point? Or were you taking measurements over several points around the listening position, like Audyssey does, and trying for the best overall response? 

Have fun,
Bill


----------



## pepar

laser188139 said:


> The second is that you may have used BFD to effectively *fill-in nulls* in the frequency response at your listening position.


That would be a mistake in the first place, wouldn't it? Traps are the only thing I''ve found that reduces nulls.

Jeff


----------



## waldo563

laser188139 said:


> When you made your BFD adjustments, did you look just at a single point? Or were you taking measurements over several points around the listening position, like Audyssey does, and trying for the best overall response?


Bill,

No, I applied the BFD filters based on one position. Taking measurements at multiple locations would be counter to minimalist work ethic...that sounds like way too much work. :bigsmile:
But it sounds like a logical suggestion.


----------



## laser188139

pepar said:


> That would be a mistake in the first place, wouldn't it? Traps are the only thing I''ve found that reduces nulls.
> 
> Jeff


Yes, Jeff, but that's why I said "effectively". As Wayne frequently points out, if one attacks the peaks with filters, then adjusts the trim to keep the same average level, one is effectively trying to fill in the nulls, even if it is not intentional. So one may be following an approved methodology, but end up with the same result. 



waldo563 said:


> Bill,
> 
> No, I applied the BFD filters based on one position. Taking measurements at multiple locations would be counter to minimalist work ethic...that sounds like way too much work. :bigsmile:
> But it sounds like a logical suggestion.


I expect it is a lot of work. That's why I've done the full set of measurements at all eight points in my Audyssey bubble only once. I've learned some pretty interesting things so far by assuming that Audyssey is doing something clever, the challenge is to figure out what it is. 

With more than one sub, and the BFD, and Audyssey, you do have a complex environment where lots of things can be happening. Mine is simpler, but just with Audyssey, two speakers and a sub, there has been ample room for experimentation. 

Bill


----------



## pepar

laser188139 said:


> Yes, Jeff, but that's why I said "effectively". As Wayne frequently points out, if one attacks the peaks with filters, then adjusts the trim to keep the same average level, one is effectively trying to fill in the nulls, even if it is not intentional. So one may be following an approved methodology, but end up with the same result.


You're referring to level matching the subs, right? Wouldn't it be sub placement that could smooth out the room modes in general, both peaks and nulls? 



> With more than one sub, and the BFD, and Audyssey, you do have a complex environment where lots of things can be happening. Mine is simpler, but just with Audyssey, two speakers and a sub, there has been ample room for experimentation.
> 
> Bill


Perhaps, Lester should look into the SVS AS-EQ1 as it's raison d'être is integrating two subs into a system and really earns its keep integrating two subs into a system in a difficult environment. Of if he has the budget and space, three or more subs can be placed to really smooth out the modes.

Jeff


----------



## waldo563

laser188139 said:


> The second is that you may have used BFD to effectively fill-in nulls in the frequency response at your listening position.





prepar said:


> That would be a mistake in the first place, wouldn't it? Traps are the only thing I''ve found that reduces nulls.


I didn't post any graphs illustrating it, but the waviness in the FR was apparent with the BFD in bypass as well. Just for clarification, I don't use boost filters with the BFD, have 4 full height super-traps, and front/side/ceiling traps so I think the problem is attributable to the sub gain. Maybe when I have a few hours to spare, I will try to reproduce the problem and confirm this hypothesis.
In any event, Audyssey seems to be working now and, in fact, has resulted in audible improvements so I'm pretty happy with the outcome.
Thanks for the input.


----------



## waldo563

pepar said:


> You're referring to level matching the subs, right? Wouldn't it be sub placement that could smooth out the room modes in general, both peaks and nulls?
> 
> 
> Perhaps, Lester should look into the SVS AS-EQ1 as it's raison d'être is integrating two subs into a system and really earns its keep integrating two subs into a system in a difficult environment. Of if he has the budget and space, three or more subs can be placed to really smooth out the modes.
> 
> Jeff


Jeff,

I would love to have an AS-EQ1 but it's a bit more than I want to spend...so much much gear, so little budget. However, what I was trying to determine was why, under identical conditions, the behavior was only exhibited with Audyssey enabled. I would expect the FR to show evidence of any extreme modal behavior with Audyssey disabled or enabled, especially with the BFD bypassed. But now all is well. :T

Lester


----------



## Waterboy

Hi, y'all!
This is my first post - so please be gentle!
I glanced over the first couple pages of this thread to search for what software y'all are using to "measure" your HT.
Could somebody please direct me to the software needed to produce results (or tell me what I need to do to get better results) ?
Thanks so much.
Take care
:help:
Scott


----------



## pepar

Waterboy said:


> Hi, y'all!
> This is my first post - so please be gentle!
> I glanced over the first couple pages of this thread to search for what software y'all are using to "measure" your HT.
> Could somebody please direct me to the software needed to produce results (or tell me what I need to do to get better results) ?
> Thanks so much.
> Take care
> :help:
> Scott


Measure? This thread is discussing a technology that measures _and equalizes_ speaker response and _corrects for_ room problems.


----------



## waldo563

Waterboy said:


> Hi, y'all!
> This is my first post - so please be gentle!
> I glanced over the first couple pages of this thread to search for what software y'all are using to "measure" your HT.
> Could somebody please direct me to the software needed to produce results (or tell me what I need to do to get better results) ?
> Thanks so much.
> Take care
> :help:
> Scott


Scott,

The software that most of the graphs are generated with is called Room Equalizer Wizard (REW) and is a great tool for analyzing your room frequency response and much more. It gets even better - it's free and available for download on The Shack. Furthermore, there is a dedicated forum and many forum members are extremely knowledgeable on the setup and interpretation.
The link to the download for the beta version 5 is:
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/downloads-area/28595-rew-v5-beta-downloads.html#post260992
Keep in mind that this is beta software and is not the final release but from what I've seen it is pretty stable. If you prefer the released version, V4.11 is also available on the download thread.
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/downloads-area/19-downloads-page.html#post84
If you run into problems, there will be many forum members able and willing to help.
Hope this helps.

Lester


----------



## Waterboy

Excellent input, Lester.
Thanks very much for taking the time to supply a link as well.
Take care

Scott


----------



## SETUP

Hi every one, just want to share something i experienced using the audyssey multeq or should i say audyssey dsx (mods., please transfer my post if i am on a wrong thread tnks!) a friend here in the Philippines has 11.4 channel set up and is using denon 4810CI + 2 more amplifier to enable front height and wides of Audyssey DSX for hin to distribute 11.3 channels. then, he added another more subwooper to complete the 11.4 channels. I had the privilege of watching a movie in his huge theather. We played Top Gun and guess what,! it's like having the feeling that you are the pilot inside the jet. The audyssey dsx turned on really made a huge sound difference compared to whenever the audyssey dsx is turned off. Sound are really massive. audyssey multEQ technology is really a bang for the buck add on on any avr's.


----------



## gdstupak

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Hmm, curious. The conductor makes adjustments for the room to make sure the sound is balanced, but we shouldn't do the same in ours? :scratch:





Kal Rubinson said:


> Not if you want to hear what the conductor (and the rest of the recording team) put on the recording. The reproduction system (including the room) should be completely neutral unless, of course, you prefer something different.


But our rooms and equipment aren't neutral, we use room treatments and eq's to make our listening environments as neutral as possible which will let us then hear what the recording team intended (or as close as possible).
Or am I missing something?


----------



## recruit

gdstupak said:


> But our rooms and equipment aren't neutral, we use room treatments and eq's to make our listening environments as neutral as possible which will let us then hear what the recording team intended (or as close as possible).
> Or am I missing something?


It is certainly what we are all trying to achieve and we are a bit spoilt now a days with Audyysey and other Room EQ systems, but room treatments is the best start place even if it is heavy rugs/curtains to dampen the frequencies will help in some situations and then run the EQ system for best/better results.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

gdstupak said:


> But our rooms and equipment aren't neutral, we use room treatments and eq's to make our listening environments as neutral as possible which will let us then hear what the recording team intended (or as close as possible).
> Or am I missing something?


Nope.


----------



## gdstupak

Sorry Kal, I misunderstood your response to Wayne. I thought you were saying that a room was neutral without using room and equipment adjustments. It didn't make sense to me because I thought you were a big proponent of room treatments.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

gdstupak said:


> Sorry Kal, I misunderstood your response to Wayne. I thought you were saying that a room was neutral without using room and equipment adjustments. It didn't make sense to me because I thought you were a big proponent of room treatments.


Rereading it, I can see where you might think so. I was saying that it should be neutral and we should not be doing and creative balancing as the conductor might.


----------



## Drudge

It looks like with MultEQ XT32 there will be even better correction capability with it's higher resolution,at least for new AVR's that will be coming out.I emailed Audyssey about whether or not they would be implementing the new algorithm into the stand alone EQ and they said they had no plans to do so since it already had more resolution than the on board AVR implementations,but it does not have as much resolution as the new XT32.

I'm a little disappointed myself considering that I just recently purchased the SEQ thinking that it would be kept updated with the latest algorithms,but they may not see any need if it still fulfills it's original design goals as is.For now though,it seems that the future higher end AVR's will be running the most advanced Audyssey correction technology.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

FWIW:


----------



## Drudge

Thanks Kal,

It seems to me that the SEQ would benefit just as well from the added resolution(128x to 512x) in the main channels.I believe the low end on the SEQ already gets the 512x resolution that XT32 will provide.I hope they haven't decided to stop supporting it,that would be a shame.:rolleyesno:

*EDIT:*_ I was mistaken on the Sound Equalizer's resolution,it's 32X for the mains and 256x for the sub channel not 128x for mains and 512x for the sub.Only the Sub Equalizer has 512x resolution.My mistake:R._


----------



## Jezza56

Hi everyone.

I am in need of a little help, I have just purchased the Nad M15 HD receiver and the M25 Power amp, My question being that it has Audyssey MultEQ XT onboard and I have a behringer ECM8000 microphone how do I get access to the software and license so I can carry out calibrations myself, I donot want to use an installer because this is my passion and interest, I build my own subs and speakers so it is not practical or $ efficient to have to rely on a installer to come out everytime I make an adjustment or change a peice of equipment, hope this makes sense.

Ps Would I be better off using REW and getting a FBD

Regards Jezza


----------



## atledreier

Contact your local Audyssey supplier, theys should be able to help you out with the pro package.


----------



## recruit

Hi Jezza - The Audyssey Multi EQ XT version will be fine using the supplied microphone with the processor, it is the Audyssey PRO that you will need software and a license, but you will have to purchase that as there is no way round it, also you would need the PRO installer microphone as it will have been calibrated for use with Audyssey PRO only, I found the XT version excellent as an EQ device and really did improve the sound and I expect you will feel the same rather than shelling out lots of dosh for the PRO kit.


----------



## Jezza56

Hi Recruit, understand what u are saying, but my unit did not come with a microphone or any information on how to carry out the calibration or even where to plug the mic in, In the manual it states this: M15HD Optional Audyssey Kit
An optional kit is available to customize the Audyssey set up of the M15HD. This is not a necessary item for the average consumer but a more advanced owner can use this kit to tune their room set-up in additional ways. The kit is sold individually and comes complete with a performance-grade microphone and accessories. It contains specific software that will be permanently associated with the unit and a key needs to be purchased on-line direct from Audyssey. Pricing and full details can be obtained from your distributor or authorized NAD retailer.

Has anyone else gone down this path

regards Jezza


----------



## recruit

I see Jezza, so that limits you to buying the Audyssey PRO kit which is not cheap and preferably a PRO installer to install it for you :spend: which costs $$$.

It would of been nice to have the option of using it as you do in AVR units.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

recruit said:


> I see Jezza, so that limits you to buying the Audyssey PRO kit which is not cheap and preferably a PRO installer to install it for you :spend: which costs $$$.
> 
> It would of been nice to have the option of using it as you do in AVR units.


Yes. When the M15HD was announced, I questioned NAD about this, suggesting that it made it impossible to use Audyssey without significant additional cost. 

OTOH, there is no reason to pay a professional for installation/calibration as almost anyone can learn to use the Pro kit. In fact, since the home user is never really "on the clock" he can lavish the kind of care and patience that would cost a fortune if applied by a pro. Yes, I do acknowledge that the Pro will be more efficient but subjective user assessments do take time and, remember, if you change your system/room, you can always DIY again without calling in the pros.


----------



## recruit

Kal Rubinson said:


> Yes. When the M15HD was announced, I questioned NAD about this, suggesting that it made it impossible to use Audyssey without significant additional cost.
> 
> OTOH, there is no reason to pay a professional for installation/calibration as almost anyone can learn to use the Pro kit. In fact, since the home user is never really "on the clock" he can lavish the kind of care and patience that would cost a fortune if applied by a pro. Yes, I do acknowledge that the Pro will be more efficient but subjective user assessments do take time and, remember, if you change your system/room, you can always DIY again without calling in the pros.


It just seems odd that they would force a product/feature in this way as the processor is not exactly cheap.

I Agree, most people would be more than capable to take on calibrating there system with the PRO kit, but its not what Installers would like to see although I know plenty of people with the Audyssey box and PRO kit who have found it pretty straight forward to use, and I am sure others would too.


----------



## Jezza56

Guess i was a little to anxious to replace my Marantz 9200 which gave up the ghost, I should have asked for more detail, i wrongly assumed, that being that the audyssey was onboard the M15 HD that it was just a matter of hooking up a mic to a laptop and then via rs232 to the M15. 
In reality it looks like if I want to utilise audyssey that I have to shell out a further $900.00, I dont understand how Onkyo can supply a kit with their receivers and Nad costing almost double cannot. I think I may just use my ecm8000 and REW buy a BFD and see how that goes at least getting my two subs calibrated.

Jezza


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Jezza56 said:


> Guess i was a little to anxious to replace my Marantz 9200 which gave up the ghost, I should have asked for more detail, i wrongly assumed, that being that the audyssey was onboard the M15 HD that it was just a matter of hooking up a mic to a laptop and then via rs232 to the M15.


Well, yes, if you buy the kit.



> In reality it looks like if I want to utilise audyssey that I have to shell out a further $900.00,


I think your number is quite an overestimate. Check the Audyssey thread on AVS for greater insight.



> I dont understand how Onkyo can supply a kit with their receivers and Nad costing almost double cannot.


I think they greatly miscalculated. They could have done what others have by supporting MultEQ XT out of the box while also providing compatibility for Pro. They do that for some of their other products.


----------



## recruit

Jezza56 said:


> Guess i was a little to anxious to replace my Marantz 9200 which gave up the ghost, I should have asked for more detail, i wrongly assumed, that being that the audyssey was onboard the M15 HD that it was just a matter of hooking up a mic to a laptop and then via rs232 to the M15.
> In reality it looks like if I want to utilise audyssey that I have to shell out a further $900.00, I dont understand how Onkyo can supply a kit with their receivers and Nad costing almost double cannot. I think I may just use my ecm8000 and REW buy a BFD and see how that goes at least getting my two subs calibrated.
> 
> Jezza


I will say one thing though, Audyssey Multi EQ XT is very very good if you really do have a troublesome room, but hey enjoy what you have for now which is a very fine processor then later on if your feeling flush again you could reconsider the PRO kit :spend:


----------



## Jezza56

I totally agree with Kal's last post, please dont think I am disgruntled with the Nad, Far from it, the sound is all t hat i hoped for and more, as for the price I contacted Wavetrain in Sydney Australia and that was what they quoted: $750.00 for the Pro Kit + $150.00 USD for the license Key so it will be about $920.00 AU. 
I guess what i am irked about is the fact that I cannot access something inside the Nad which obviously has cost me already to have put in, without having to shell out for another Mic, preamp, mic stand which I already have for REW. All I really need is the software and the license which I would not mind paying for.

If anyone knows where I can get the kit for less $$$ please chime in.


----------



## hifisponge

Hi Jezza - 

You can order the Pro mic kit directly from Audyssey by contacting Luke at [email protected].

It's going to run you $550 for the base software / mic (cannot use your existing Behringer mic).

It's another $150 for the license for your NAD and another $150 if you want to upgrade the software to allow you to modify the target curve.

Edit: Sorry, just realized that you are in AU. Don't know if you can buy the kit directly from Audyssey in this case.

Cheers,

- Tim


----------



## Jezza56

Thank-you for the info Tim, I have ordered the pro Kit through my Nad dealer here in AUS, should be here early next week, I hope to finish off my speakers this weekend so everything will be sweet...thanks again 

Jezza


----------



## hifisponge

While the mic kit is expensive, it is a very nice kit and one that I'm sure you will get a lot of value out of. It is certainly better than paying someone to do the calibration.


----------



## recruit

Jezza - I would see how it goes as I do not really use the EQ feature on my Arcam AV888 as the sound is just so good without the EQ for music, for action movies I engage it, but the I'm sure the quality of NAD will be very very good also and when you have the change to invest in the kit then do it as Audyssey really is rather good and probably the best on the market.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

recruit said:


> Jezza - I would see how it goes as I do not really use the EQ feature on my Arcam AV888 as the sound is just so good without the EQ for music, for action movies I engage it, but the I'm sure the quality of NAD will be very very good also and when you have the change to invest in the kit then do it as Audyssey really is rather good and probably the best on the market.


The EQ on the ARCAM is greatly inferior to Audyssey although it can sometimes be effective.


----------



## recruit

Kal Rubinson said:


> The EQ on the ARCAM is greatly inferior to Audyssey although it can sometimes be effective.


Agreed.


----------



## rambo64

I Ran the Audyssey setup and it picked up all my speakers. It doesn't play my rears just FH, Mains and Surr in Audyssey DSX


I took 5 readings and it showed afterwards that Audyssey recognized all of my speakers including the rears. I used a tripod just as the manual suggested and didn't encounter any errors during setup.


Should Dynamic EQ be on or off? And my sub is set at 80HZ THZ. It will not let me set it to LFE 60HZ which is where I want it. Do I switch off the LFE on my sub and run it normal or is there a way to change it on the RCVR?


----------



## recruit

rambo64 said:


> I Ran the Audyssey setup and it picked up all my speakers. It doesn't play my rears just FH, Mains and Surr in Audyssey DSX
> 
> 
> I took 5 readings and it showed afterwards that Audyssey recognized all of my speakers including the rears. I used a tripod just as the manual suggested and didn't encounter any errors during setup.
> 
> 
> Should Dynamic EQ be on or off? And my sub is set at 80HZ THZ. It will not let me set it to LFE 60HZ which is where I want it. Do I switch off the LFE on my sub and run it normal or is there a way to change it on the RCVR?


For the rears to be used you must select it on PrologicIIz or DTS:neo 6.1 when it is just 2.0, it will work when 7.1 sources are recognised.

I think Dynamic EQ is on all the time IIRC but you should be able to select a different Xover, that is a strange one, have you made any other alterations like to the SPL after Audyssey has been run ?


----------



## rambo64

recruit said:


> For the rears to be used you must select it on PrologicIIz or DTS:neo 6.1 when it is just 2.0, it will work when 7.1 sources are recognised.
> 
> I think Dynamic EQ is on all the time IIRC but you should be able to select a different Xover, that is a strange one, have you made any other alterations like to the SPL after Audyssey has been run ?


No other alterations. Dynamic EQ was off, so I turned it on. 

As far the rears, the FH's don't play if I put it on PrologicIIz, that is why I had to run Audyssey to recognize them.


----------



## recruit

I would double check all your cabling and all settings on the amp again read from the manual and if all else fails speak to Onkyo.


----------



## Andre

An Audy room EQ with MultEQ XT costs $2500 and yet your can get MultEQ XT in a reciever for a little over $1000. Now I understand that room eqs are for high end installs with separate amps with balanced inputs for each set of speakers. However, is there a differnence in eaches abliity to EQ a room, being they are both MultEQ XT.

Denon, Onkyo and Marantz all have this EQ do they all implent it equally?


----------



## tonyvdb

If it is MultEQ XT then yes, only higher end receivers have this format most only have Audessey EQ2 and is not as full featured.


----------



## Andre

Onkyo TX-NR1007 $1500 Canadian MultEQ XT...


----------



## tonyvdb

Yes, By lower end receivers I mean available in the US for $800USD and under.
Onkyo has really broke the barrier as far as including MultEQ XT in a very reasonably priced receiver.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Andre said:


> An Audy room EQ with MultEQ XT costs $2500 and yet your can get MultEQ XT in a reciever for a little over $1000. Now I understand that room eqs are for high end installs with separate amps with balanced inputs for each set of speakers. However, is there a differnence in eaches abliity to EQ a room, being they are both MultEQ XT.


They are not equal. The SEQ has more filter taps and curve options.. It also uses the Pro setup which offers more measurement positions and curve editing.



> Denon, Onkyo and Marantz all have this EQ do they all implent it equally?


If the label of the EQ is the same (e.g., MultEQ XT), the implementation is the same.


----------



## Andre

But will you get the same effect from the receiver based MultiEQ XT as you would with the $2500 separate from Audy? Or will the Audy's computer based application and more involved setup which requires a tech make a difference. If yes, how much do you think


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Andre said:


> But will you get the same effect from the receiver based MultiEQ XT as you would with the $2500 separate from Audy?


Impossible to say. It is dependent on what and how much correction is required by your setup.



> Or will the Audy's computer based application and more involved setup which requires a tech make a difference.


A tech is not required. Many of us own and use the Pro setup.



> If yes, how much do you think


See above.


----------



## Andre

Next question is about Audy DSX. I am not sure if I could make this work properly with my room. My 70" Samy DLP takes up most of my front wall, the Axiom M22's on stands on either side. The distance between the side walls and the M22s is about 2 feet. DSX wants you to add Wide surronds, I don't think I would get the desired effect with only that much space. Is this true.


----------



## recruit

Andre said:


> Next question is about Audy DSX. I am not sure if I could make this work properly with my room. My 70" Samy DLP takes up most of my front wall, the Axiom M22's on stands on either side. The distance between the side walls and the M22s is about 2 feet. DSX wants you to add Wide surronds, I don't think I would get the desired effect with only that much space. Is this true.


You have more or less answered your own question, in that the room Ideally dictates how and where we can place speakers for the best sound and with the new Audyssey DSX not everyone can take advantage of this feature with good results.


----------



## Moonfly

recruit said:


> You have more or less answered your own question, in that the room Ideally dictates how and where we can place speakers for the best sound and with the new Audyssey DSX not everyone can take advantage of this feature with good results.


I would also argue that if your struggling to fit the extra speakers into your room, then you likely dont need them anyway. Also, things like the height speakers for the most part (I say most as a disclaimer) is basically a DSP mode, not a raw production intended by the source material, which also dictates a lack of interest in such modes for me personally. Finally, features like Audyssey only have a certain amount of processing power, again this is a personal thing, but I prefer to limit how much I share that power out and focus it on the important speakers, meaning for me 5.1/2 is the primary concern, the 7.x then the fancy other modes come last.

I would only use 9 speakers in a setup that was in a room large enough to really benefit from all those speakers. IMO, if your room is smaller, then I simply wouldnt worry about every feature, as you dont have to use them if you dont want, I know I at least dont.


----------



## recruit

As an example I am currently running 5.1 (well I be once I get my new sub) but I did try 7.1 and with my sofa being on the back wall the speakers could only be placed on the window ledge directly behind me and it just did not work and sounded awful, so I went back to 5.1 and it sounds far better, so the moral of the story is make sure your speaker placements in the room will be right for what you need whether it be 7.1/9.2 or any DSP modes that your AVR offers.


----------



## Moonfly

I agree John, I only run 5.1 (my system is currently being overhauled as well though), as it simple works best in my room. Anything more starts to have a negative impact.


----------



## phreak

I'm new to the discussion, just picked up an onkyo 3007 and thought I'd read here to learn a little about it. I agree on this whole concept of how many speakers to set up, that it should be dictated by the room. My last system was built for 7.2 and I loved it. New system is 5.2 (under construction) because the awkward shaped area would not benefit from additional speakers for HT use. I did add 2 in-ceilings in far corners of room (outside movie watching area) that I intend to set up as a zone 2 and use for background infill during large get-togethers or football parties. Can I use the Audessy to tune the zone 2 speakers?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## recruit

phreak said:


> Can I use the Audessy to tune the zone 2 speakers?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


As far as I am aware NO.


----------



## tcarcio

OK, I did a cal and did all six positions. The problem is that after I was finished I checked levels with my meter and most of them were different?? Only the two back surrounds were at 75db. All the rest were different by up to 8db. Anyone have this happen to them? I will redo the test but it seemed to go thru the tests fine.


----------



## recruit

Audyssey can exaggerate some of the SPL levels and have had this happen before many times just change them by measuring to 75db with your SPL meter and keep the other settings as they are, do not change the distance measurements as Audyssey works in the time domain and these should stay as they are.


----------



## tcarcio

That is what I did. Thanks. So this is common with Audyssey? I didn't have such a difference with Mcacc. A couple of db's yes but 8db I think is a bit much but if it doesn't effect any of the other calibrations then I suppose it isn't that important.


----------



## gdstupak

I've probably went thru the set-up process 30 times in the last year with my Onkyo and the levels have always been right on, of course I usually would tweak it just to experiment. Different types and sizes of speakers would show different gains (i.e. the front L+R would be set at -4; the smaller center +1.5; the surround in-ceilings -2), but when measured with my SPL meter they were all putting out the same level to the listening area.

My great room is app. 18'w x 27'd. The listening area that I move the set-up mic around is pretty small, app. 8'w x 3'd and there is about 13' between the front speakers and the listening area.


----------



## recruit

Audyssey is probably one of the best solutions on the market for EQ and results can be affected by all sorts of conditions, the room is the most important part but ambient noises how the mic sits ie on a proper stand(camera tripod) so some people do get the desired results when calibrating, but even when the levels may come out differently once the EQ is applied it works well.


----------



## Ares

I remember running Audyssey quite a few times in the past seven months I suffer from tweakitis, some of my measurements were off and I couldn't figure out why. I found out that the noise from the ceiling fan motor was causing an issue add to that noise from the fridge was having an impact as well. So I unplugged the fridge turned everything off and ran it again it was still off but nothing like it was before.


----------



## recruit

My settings were always close but did need tweaking the SPL after as they may have been 1-3db out, but no big deal using an SPL meter to correctly balance the system :T


----------



## TRiSS

recruit said:


> My settings were always close but did need tweaking the SPL after as they may have been 1-3db out, but no big deal using an SPL meter to correctly balance the system :T


I may be off here, but I'm wondering how you know that the SPL meter is more accurate then what audyssey sets? I was thinking that unless you have a very fancy expensive model, the meter itself has an inaccuracy of a few db (but is of course a better tool then "by ear"), so who's to say the meter is more right then audyssey? Just wondering :huh:


----------



## recruit

TRiSS said:


> I may be off here, but I'm wondering how you know that the SPL meter is more accurate then what audyssey sets? I was thinking that unless you have a very fancy expensive model, the meter itself has an inaccuracy of a few db (but is of course a better tool then "by ear"), so who's to say the meter is more right then audyssey? Just wondering :huh:


This is a good point, and you take it for granted that the SPL meter is spot on but that is there main purpose so you would think that they will not be far off, you know once Audyssey has done its calibration whether or not they are right if you have been using it for some time, subs it tends to set lower so most people like to run subs hotter than the rest of the speakers so I can go up to 5db hotter sometimes than the rest of them.

You are right and that is the best measuring tool is your ears, for example after setting with the SPL meter I tend to up the Right Surround speaker a few db which sounds better to my ears.


----------



## Ares

Sonnie posted some correction tables for the RS meter in the REW Forum


----------



## gdstupak

I've also wondered if the Audessey's settings might differ because it is trying to compensate to make it sound good from several different seating positions (it won't sound perfect from any one spot, but it's the setting that would make the whole room sound decent). Although as I said earlier, my Audyssey settings have always been spot on with my meter at my center seat (except for the subs).


----------



## Moonfly

The correction values are for importing in to REW, I'm not sure if there is a manual way to apply that to what you read on the meter. One way to check for consistency between the spl and Audyssey I suppose, would be to let Audyssey run, check a channels level, then increase by 10db and see if the meter increase by the same amount. If the 2 are worlds apart then thats says one thing, if they are close or spot on, then it says something else. Its no cast iron result, but its a start and should at least tell you if the SPL and AVR measure differences the same. It still wouldnt determine which is the most accurate though.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

recruit said:


> This is a good point, and you take it for granted that the SPL meter is spot on but that is there main purpose so you would think that they will not be far off, you know once Audyssey has done its calibration whether or not they are right if you have been using it for some time, subs it tends to set lower so most people like to run subs hotter than the rest of the speakers so I can go up to 5db hotter sometimes than the rest of them.





Ares said:


> Sonnie posted some correction tables for the RS meter in the REW Forum


The problem is not just the calibration curve but the directionality of the RS meter which is very loosely defined and the nature of the test signals. Audyssey works with a swift sweep that is time-locked to the measurement system to control direct vs. reflected energy. One usually uses the RS meter with pink noise that, of necessity, is long-lasting and mixes direct and reflected/delayed energy. In addition, its acceptance angle will define what signals will dominate its averaged SPL reading.

I have compared the Audyssey results with other calibrated systems (with pulses/sweeps/noise) and it is pretty much dead-on. Readings with the RS meter are _sometimes _dead-on and rarely very far off but, imho, not as trustworthy as the others.

Of course, if you introduce personal preference level settings (and I have no objection to that), the issue is moot.


----------



## gdstupak

DYNAMIC EQ ALERT...DYNAMIC EQ ALERT...WARNING WILL ROBINSON, THERE IS A DYNAMIC EQ ALERT....

For those of you getting odd results from Audyssey:

After running the Audyssey set up, my AVR automatically turns on the 'Dynamic EQ' which changes all settings based on the main volume level (not only does it change EQ settings but also speaker levels). Before checking/adjusting your individual speaker levels, make sure 'Dynamic EQ' is off. 
After running Audyssey I always turn mine off and leave it off because it is way too "corrective" for my tastes.


----------



## Moonfly

Excellent info guys :T


----------



## atledreier

gdstupak said:


> DYNAMIC EQ ALERT...DYNAMIC EQ ALERT...WARNING WILL ROBINSON, THERE IS A DYNAMIC EQ ALERT....
> 
> For those of you getting odd results from Audyssey:
> 
> After running the Audyssey set up, my AVR automatically turns on the 'Dynamic EQ' which changes all settings based on the main volume level (not only does it change EQ settings but also speaker levels). Before checking/adjusting your individual speaker levels, make sure 'Dynamic EQ' is off.
> After running Audyssey I always turn mine off and leave it off because it is way too "corrective" for my tastes.


Usually when you run the processor pink noise channel level signals they are run at 0dBFS, which means the Dynamic EQ is not doing any correction whatsoever. If you use an external signal and a master volume other than 0dBFS, then yes, turn it off.


----------



## Moonfly

atledreier said:


> Usually when you run the processor pink noise channel level signals they are run at 0dBFS, which means the Dynamic EQ is not doing any correction whatsoever. If you use an external signal and a master volume other than 0dBFS, then yes, turn it off.


They are run at 75 db AFAIK, not reference level.


----------



## atledreier

The SPL is 75dB.

They are run at -30dBFS, with the master volume at 0dBFS. I have never observed any difference in channel level with DynEQ on or off. Maybe my Denon AVR4308 switch off DynEQ when running the noise, but my understandign is that at 0dB mastervolume, DynEq will not affect the signal at all, regardless of the actual signal level. 0dB master volume, or 'reference level' is how it's supposed to be played back, and no signal level would need any correction.


----------



## Moonfly

Sorry, I confused what you were saying. I should have read your post better :doh:

I was also under the impressing DEQ had no effect on the test tone signals, that would be one variable that could really mess up a systems set up, and with no good reason for needing DE on the test tones. Its not an issue anyway, as the closest thing my amp has to DEQ is 'late night mode', which Ive never used anyway.


----------



## tcarcio

atledreier said:


> The SPL is 75dB.
> 
> They are run at -30dBFS, with the master volume at 0dBFS. I have never observed any difference in channel level with DynEQ on or off. Maybe my Denon AVR4308 switch off DynEQ when running the noise, but my understandign is that at 0dB mastervolume, DynEq will not affect the signal at all, regardless of the actual signal level. 0dB master volume, or 'reference level' is how it's supposed to be played back, and no signal level would need any correction.


Well on my Marantz when listening to music if I turn off Dynamic eq/vol the difference is very noticeable. It doesn't change the quality of the sound but it definitley bumps up a couple of db's.


----------



## atledreier

With music and a MV other than 0dB you get a difference, yes. Also Dynamic Volume will alter perceived loudness, that's what it's made for. We are discussing if Dynamic EQ will alter level trims with MV at 0dB. It doesn't on my Denon.


----------



## tcarcio

OH ok, I will have to check my Marantz and see if it makes a difference but I would think it doesn't in that instance.


----------



## Moonfly

AFAIK, DEQ doesnt do anything to the base trim levels, it simply applies correction, different correction at different frequencies at different volumes. The Audyssey website makes no mention of altering the base trims, in fact, just doing that wouldnt apply the DEQ correctly on its own.


----------



## atledreier

I am aware of this. The issue was if DEQ will affect apparent level trims when running the processor's pink noise test signals with DEQ active.


----------



## Moonfly

atledreier said:


> I am aware of this. The issue was if DEQ will affect apparent level trims when running the processor's pink noise test signals with DEQ active.


If it doesnt affect the normal trim levels, why would it do it just for the pink noise specifically?


----------



## atledreier

No, I worded my post poorly, sorry.

I never meant it actually altered the channel trims. I meant that when you run the processor test tones and adjust level trims with an SPL meter, the trims would not be different with DEQ on or off.

Hope that was clearer.


----------



## Moonfly

Yeah that was clearer, maybe I have cloth ears though


----------



## Picture_Shooter

Hey all,

I got around today and got a great deal on a Denon AVR-1611.
I ran the Audyssey and used the mic for 4-different seat areas. So it is all calibrated, but I had a super quick question.

In the directions it stated that the SUB amp level needs to be set at 50% (12 o'clock) and that the X-over frequency needs to be set all the way up when doing the Audyssey.

Now since it is all done, "do I" keep it that way? Or do I now / should start turning things back down?

Note: I am amazed the AUdyssey set my sub all the way down to -12 and my center to "small".

Thanks for any info.


----------



## laser188139

Picture_Shooter said:


> ... Note: I am amazed the AUdyssey set my sub all the way down to -12 and my center to "small". ...


If the receiver's sub trim is set to -12dB, then your sub gain is set too high and the receiver is not bringing its level down enough to match the others. You need to turn the sub gain down below 12 o'clock and try again. There is more advice in the online Audyssey setup guide. 

Good luck,
Bill


----------



## recruit

As Bill has mentioned the AVR's sub level is set too low and if I were you I would turn the subs gain down and the Receivers gain up, also using an SPL meter to try and level the SPL out.


----------



## Picture_Shooter

Hey there!

I am using an Outlaw LFM1-Plus and what I did to get any kind of gain out of the sub from -12 was had to turn down the sub level tuned to 2.5 (  ).

The max gain on this amp / sub is 10. This stinks because power amp output is only about 35% running with audyssey. 

The Denon got the sub level to -5.0 at least somewhat better then -12 

I may kick the db's up a few notches on the receiver and put the amp gain to 4 (at least). 


Thanks all
Thanks


----------



## gdstupak

Picture_Shooter said:


> ...The max gain on this amp / sub is 10. This stinks because power amp output is only about 35% running with audyssey.
> The Denon got the sub level to -5.0 at least somewhat better then -12


What stinks about 35% volume level vs. 50-100% volume level, if 35% is what's needed for the correct SPL's of your room?
Are you thinking that the sub would 'hit harder' if the sub volume were running at 70% and set the AVR's sub level down to where you would still get the same SPL?
Maybe I'm wrong, but 70db from a sub will sound/feel the same whether you use 20% or 80% of the subs volume.
Or maybe I'm not understanding what you think stinks about only using 35%.


----------



## Moonfly

The gain on the rear of the sub is merely for balancing, as is the trim level on the amp. The source material determines the eventual output in tandem with the volume dial. Once you eq your system, the master volume is what increase output and volume. With the master volume set a zero, the output will be reference no matter where you have the trim or gain levels set.

The actual power an amplifier outputs is always changing, from perhaps a few watts (therefore db's) in quiet scenes, to full power in others. Only the master volume ultimately controls overall output level. When you play a film with the amps volume at 0 (reference level), the sound will be on average 75-80db, with peaks of upto 105db, and upto 10db extra over that for the LFE depending on the mixing of the film. If your system is correctly calibrated, then the trim levels will be set so between them your sub and speakers output at the intended volumes. The more you increase the gain on yours subs amp, the more Audyssey (or whatever you use) is likely to reduce your trim level on the processor, so you dont need to worry about your dial only being at 30% or whatever, the system will still go loud and still likely be capable of maxing out your amplifiers.

In the real world though, we dont want to max out kit, we want to achieve our desired listening volumes well within or systems capabilities. This ensures good sound reproduction, instead of a stressed sound of amplifiers and speakers being overworked.


----------



## gdstupak

Well said, as always.
I changed my "35% amp output" to "35% volume level" in my response.

Although technically:
When applying a steady test tone to a sub, does the subs volume correspond somewhat closely to it's amp output? In other words, while playing a steady test tone from an AVR, say you set the subs volume to 3 (or 30% of max volume), is it using approximately 30% of it's amps power? .... and then if you raise the sub's volume to 8, it is now using approximately 80% of it's amps power?


----------



## Moonfly

The test tone is generated from the AVR with it giving a set output through its own amps, and a fixed output level through any of the other outputs, like the LFE output terminal. What that level translates to in the real world is influenced by many many factors, non of which are fixed and non of which are pre-determinable. Speaker sensitivity, room size, and listening distance from speakers all throw variables into the mix. Its for this reason that we calibrate the HT output on all channels, so as to achieve a datum or reference point. Once achieved the read out on the volume display will match the intended real world output, 0 is reference level mentioned earlier), - 30 is 75 db.

So, how much amp power is actually used for a given setting. Well that is determined by system setup. If your very close to your speakers then your gain and trims will reduce (and average amp power output will reduce). You will hear the same volume the display readout tells you that you are. If your in a very large room and a long way from the speakers, all your gain and trim levels will increase (increasing amp power required), but you still hear the same spl for a given readout on the volume display.

The louder the spl you hear, the more wattages your amps are pumping into your speakers. Where your gain and trim levels are, and actual wattage and output produced, is dependant on your master volume setting, and your room (distance to speakers etc). If your very close to your speakers, then you wont need as much power to hear reference level as you would if your very far from them. For any given settings on your amp or subs amp, your amplifiers will produce the exact amount of power it needs to for you to hear the reference level (if amp is set to reference volume), and as you turn your systems master volume up or down, it will increase or decrease its power output until it reaches its limit, which will likely induce clipping or a system protection cutback.

The gain and trim level dont really have anything to do with what your amps actual output will be once you have calibrated your system. Any amps working of the back or a processor in a calibrated system are a slave to the master volume of that system, and the gain and trim level setting are merely in line so you can balance the system up correctly. In one setup, your subs amp may be maxing with the gain set at 30%, while in another setup, the gain could be full but the amp never hit it limit. The idea is that between the gain setting and trim level on your processor, you find a good balance so all systems components work well together. Typically, setting a subs gain to about half will yield ideal results. If you in a very small room, you may need to reduce it a little if the processor trim level is trying to trim to much and hits maximum cut. If the processor is boosting the sub channel, then its an indication you may need to increase the gain on your subs amp.


----------



## Picture_Shooter

Makes total sense and thanks for the all the feedback. 

I totally changed my room around (got a new entertainment center). So I brought the sub much closer to the sofa for near field. 
Ran audyssey again and ran my towers as rear surround and the N24ii as my front L & R speakers. 

The sub set to power "4" and it set it to -11db.

What really chaps me is that all my speakers were set to 40hz, but except the center to 60hz. Amazing how it put the frequency cut-off. Oh well I guess I will have to deal with it. 

Overall, not saying I am unhappy, but I may manually tweek couple things like raise the DB's on the front L & R and sub db's little higher.

Cheers all.


----------



## Moonfly

Many people tweak their systems to taste once auto setup has run, so dont worry about that. At the end of the day its your system and you have to be happy with it, and thats whats important.

A lot of systems will detect what the speaker is capable of outputting, and set the frequency to that. Audyssey and THX (amongst others) say that for proper film reproduction the speakers all should be set to 80hz, and film tracks are mixed with this in mind as well. I would set to 80 hz in a HT only setup personally.


----------



## gdstupak

Listen to this speaker cut-off craziness.
With no outboard eq'ing, after running Audyssey, my Onkyo will usually set my main speakers (JBL 12" towers) to full.
With outboard eq'ing flat down to 30-40hz, after running Audyssey, my Onkyo will usually set my mains higher around 80hz.

As a side note about setting all crossovers to 80hz:
Honestly, I tried this for a week, and I wanted to like it, but I can't stand hearing the higher hz sounds coming out of my subs. Really, James Earl Jone's voice should come out of the front speakers not out of the sub that is beside me.
My subs play only the lower non-directional stuff, 40hz and lower. I've read on this site that you should set the subs higher because the LFE channel can have material over 100hz. To me, LFE is 50hz and lower, 100hz is not low frequency. With my old Yamaha AVR I was able to send the LFE info to the subs and mains, but the Onkyo won't do that so I guess I'm missing out on some of the LFE stuff.


----------



## Moonfly

Does your Onkyo have an option called double bass. I have it on mine and this is the option to send lfe to both the sub and mains.

FWIW, the best integrated setup I have had at home was with dual subs at the front next to my main speakers, with the subs playing upto 100hz, and it sounded fantastic to my ears. Much better than letting the speakers try produce those low frequencies.


----------



## gdstupak

I do use 'double bass' but the manual states: 
"with this function you can boost bass output by feeding bass sounds from the front left/right channels to the sub."
It doesn't say anything about sending the .1 LFE signals to the front left/right channels, so I figured it didn't. Hopefully it does.

Besides the sound directionality issue with the subs, the reason I let my main speakers handle much of the bass is because the JBL's musical reproduction sounds better compared to that of the subs. Kick drums, pipe organs, upright string bass, etc. sounds more natural and realistic from the JBL's.
I've tried many crossover points (80,60,50hz) and 40hz sounds the most natural with my system.
Now with my huge boxy tv there is no room for the subs up front. I'll try the sub's up front with different crossover points whenever I get a flat panel tv.


----------



## Moonfly

Ah right, maybe it doesnt work the other way then. I must say though it sounds like you sure like your bass, and like it powerful. Ive always found speakers sound better with music when they run their full range. Thats said, a recent dual sub setup still sounded superior IMO in my setup, with integration being the main point of importance. Once setup right they sounded much better than the speakers alone with only a very low end sub working.


----------



## gdstupak

I do like the bass, but quality not quantity for me.
When I let the subs handle higher freq up to 80hz the room definitely shook more and I could feel the explosions more, but like I said earlier there were directionality issues and the quality of sound was not as good as letting the main speakers handle it.
If I were using smaller front speakers I would find room up front for at least one of the subs and use a higher crossover. But for now the combination of the eq, the outboard amp, and the 12"ers from my front JBL's can handle that 50hz area very well. 
Whenever I start test driving new speakers I think about going smaller. At the store I'll listen to the 8-10"ers and actually think about getting those, then at the last minute I say "just for giggles let's listen to the 12"ers" and then I'm hooked on the big ones all over again.
Same thing happens with 4 cyl or 6 cyl cars for me.


----------



## gdstupak

I know this is the Audyssey thread but if you would allow me one more gripe (..er..observation) about this 80hz main/sub crossover thing.
I've been reading audio/video mags for well over 10yrs and there's an aspect of speaker reviews that really bugs me.
Whenever these professional reviewers get a set of speakers to review (90% of the time they are 5.1 sets with bookshelf main speakers that can't play lower than 80-100hz) they use the included sub while reviewing sound quality for movies and comment on the explosions they feel. 
But then 99% of the time they turn off the sub for their critical music listening/review and they gush over the warmth, airiness and quality of music reproduction from these small speakers.
Music from electronic to jazz to classical has instruments that play in the 30hz range, you're missing so much of the experience and fullness when listening to speakers that can't play lower than 80hz. 
So why don't these reviewers use the sub with their critical music listening and comment on how well the sub sounds with music? Probably because the subs aren't up to the task of reproducing music well and they muddy up the quality?

****NOTE: I know there are great sounding subs out there so I'm not making a blanket statement that all subs cannot reproduce music accurately.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

gdstupak said:


> So why don't these reviewers use the sub with their critical music listening and comment on how well the sub sounds with music?


I suspect they are pandering to the audiophile dogma that dictates minimal circuitry/processing for stereo music. It denies the fact that time and technology have marched on.


----------



## gdstupak

Insightful Kal.
Thanks for your input.


----------



## atledreier

Well said, Kal!


----------



## Moonfly

I have always found it hard to do stereo music justuce. With a well integrated sub, there was always still something slightly lacking compared to speakers only. The speakers I have dont go as deep, and once you try getting the sub and speakers together, the speakers always seem to underperform, an the bass is never quite right, even though its obviously deeper.

The only time I found this issue was fixed in my setup was running dual subs. Music reproduction with the subs active was then sublime. Timing was improved, integration was completely seamless, clarity from the speakers increased, but the bass was still lovely and warm. Kick drums had a real beat that got the foot tapping going and any thing with real bass in sounded very powerful and got the smile going.

Personally, I think if you are a very critical music listener, then dual subs is the best way forward by far, it changed a lot of thing in my view anyway, and IMHO is the best setup for me now for both music and movies. The subs or speakers capabilities didnt change, it was the system setup and integration that improved. Contrary to a lot of opinion, I also used Audyssey in this kind of musical setup, and it worked a treat. I put that down to dual subs as previously I would listen to stereo music without the subs and with Audyssey off, even though I lost some low end grunt. Following the addition of the second sub, everything changed for me.


----------



## pepar

Moonfly said:


> I have always found it hard to do stereo music justuce. With a well integrated sub, there was always still something slightly lacking compared to speakers only. The speakers I have dont go as deep, and once you try getting the sub and speakers together, the speakers always seem to underperform, an the bass is never quite right, even though its obviously deeper.
> 
> The only time I found this issue was fixed in my setup was running dual subs. Music reproduction with the subs active was then sublime. Timing was improved, integration was completely seamless, clarity from the speakers increased, but the bass was still lovely and warm. Kick drums had a real beat that got the foot tapping going and any thing with real bass in sounded very powerful and got the smile going.
> 
> Personally, I think if you are a very critical music listener, then dual subs is the best way forward by far, it changed a lot of thing in my view anyway, and IMHO is the best setup for me now for both music and movies. The subs or speakers capabilities didnt change, it was the system setup and integration that improved. Contrary to a lot of opinion, I also used Audyssey in this kind of musical setup, and it worked a treat. I put that down to dual subs as previously I would listen to stereo music without the subs and with Audyssey off, even though I lost some low end grunt. Following the addition of the second sub, everything changed for me.


It has been a long time since I did not have a sub in my 2-channel listening system. IMO, there are no Large speakers .. at least none that most of us can afford. And even then, there will be a separate bass "commode" that is essentially a subwoofer. I certainly agree that dual subs, or more correctly _multiple_ subs is the way to go. The "triggering event" was Iron Man (the movie!), but doubling my subs (I had two collocated and moved to two pair) made a huge difference in movies and music. Effortless bass is how I describe it.

Two subs if placed wisely can smooth out room modes. Smooth them out and ringing is reduced. Reduce ringing and _everything_ cleans up .. from bottom to top.

Jeff


----------



## recruit

Multichannel music can have positive results when using a sub but for stereo I have always prefered using speakers only, I am due to get a Martin Logan sub soon and will try it with my ProAc's and see whether my opinion changes, I have tried many subs in the past before and REL being excellent subs for 2 channel music, I never felt impressed...but I shall see how I get on with the ML.


----------



## pepar

recruit said:


> Multichannel music can have positive results when using a sub but for stereo I have always prefered using speakers only, I am due to get a Martin Logan sub soon and will try it with my ProAc's and see whether my opinion changes, I have tried many subs in the past before and REL being excellent subs for 2 channel music, I never felt impressed...but I shall see how I get on with the ML.


Have you experienced Audyssey? Adding that to my system integrated the surrounds with the fronts and the sub with the mains to a degree that I had never heard before. My system is absolutely seamless now. If you've never used Audyssey then I highly recommend that you try it.

Jeff
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## recruit

pepar said:


> Have you experienced Audyssey? Adding that to my system integrated the surrounds with the fronts and the sub with the mains to a degree that I had never heard before. My system is absolutely seamless now. If you've never used Audyssey then I highly recommend that you try it.
> 
> Jeff
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Hi Jeff, Yes I have owned 2 AVR's one from Denon and the 2nd was with my old Onkyo 905 which was a great AV amp, also had some extensive demo's with the PRO standalone unit and with both implementations I think Audyssey is probably the best EQ on the market for us consumers, unless you have serious $$$ and obviously other solutions are available.

When it comes to Hi-Fi though I'd rather not have anything digital altering the signal, as it needs to be as pure as it can be, if there are problems with room interaction then altering your speakers positioning and room acoustic treatments are the better choice for me anyway.


----------



## pepar

recruit said:


> Hi Jeff, Yes I have owned 2 AVR's one from Denon and the 2nd was with my old Onkyo 905 which was a great AV amp, also had some extensive demo's with the PRO standalone unit and with both implementations I think Audyssey is probably the best EQ on the market for us consumers, unless you have serious $$$ and obviously other solutions are available.
> 
> When it comes to Hi-Fi though I'd rather not have anything digital altering the signal, as it needs to be as pure as it can be, if there are problems with room interaction then altering your speakers positioning and room acoustic treatments are the better choice for me anyway.


Yep, I've heard that before and understand. I am all for 1) speaker positioning and 2) acoustical treatments. But ... can you link me to any research indicates that people can hear an A/D/A roundtrip through high quality gear? 

Jeff


----------



## Moonfly

pepar said:


> It has been a long time since I did not have a sub in my 2-channel listening system. IMO, there are no Large speakers .. at least none that most of us can afford. And even then, there will be a separate bass "commode" that is essentially a subwoofer. I certainly agree that dual subs, or more correctly _multiple_ subs is the way to go. The "triggering event" was Iron Man (the movie!), but doubling my subs (I had two collocated and moved to two pair) made a huge difference in movies and music. Effortless bass is how I describe it.
> 
> Two subs if placed wisely can smooth out room modes. Smooth them out and ringing is reduced. Reduce ringing and _everything_ cleans up .. from bottom to top.
> 
> Jeff


It does indeed clean everything up a treat, but I also thing integration is another of the big advantages as non-co located subs seem to become so much more part of the speaker than any single of co-located sub(s) are IME.


----------



## recruit

pepar said:


> Yep, I've heard that before and understand. I am all for 1) speaker positioning and 2) acoustical treatments. But ... can you link me to any research indicates that people can hear an A/D/A roundtrip through high quality gear?
> 
> Jeff


No I cannot Jeff but I trust my ears and shortest path possible (source > pre-amp > power amps > speakers), with the sources DAC's being of the highest quality that you can afford, have had some serious 2 channel equipment in the past and also tried and tested with my ears judging and sometimes being quite surprised that some times the more expensive kit is not always best if not matched properly.

Any way this is wondering Off Topic so lets keep this about Audyssey from now on please.


----------



## tcarcio

OK, I have a question. My Marantz calibrates 6 positions with Audyssey but I have a small HT room with one row of 4 seats. Shouldn't I just do the seating area, which would be 4, and forget doing the other 2? The last 2 would be about 3 feet in front of the seats and why should I care about what it sounds like there seeing as no one sits there?


----------



## pepar

recruit said:


> No I cannot Jeff but I trust my ears and shortest path possible (source > pre-amp > power amps > speakers), with the sources DAC's being of the highest quality that you can afford, have had some serious 2 channel equipment in the past and also tried and tested with my ears judging and sometimes being quite surprised that some times the more expensive kit is not always best if not matched properly.
> 
> Any way this is wondering Off Topic so lets keep this about Audyssey from now on please.


Fair enough. Time and technology marches on. My experience is that Audyssey is a huge net plus even after all of my acoustical treatments.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## pepar

tcarcio said:


> OK, I have a question. My Marantz calibrates 6 positions with Audyssey but I have a small HT room with one row of 4 seats. Shouldn't I just do the seating area, which would be 4, and forget doing the other 2? The last 2 would be about 3 feet in front of the seats and why should I care about what it sounds like there seeing as no one sits there?


The measurement positions don't necessarily correspond to seating locations. The idea is to sample the listening area so that the algorithm has enough information to create proper filters. This is especially important for low frequencies. It's highly recommended to take all the measurements available in your system. Also, try to avoid going too far off axis (i.e. don't measure in locations outside the span of the front L and R speakers) and also avoid measuring too close to the back wall. More info and a diagram available here.


----------



## tcarcio

pepar said:


> The measurement positions don't necessarily correspond to seating locations. The idea is to sample the listening area so that the algorithm has enough information to create proper filters. This is especially important for low frequencies. It's highly recommended to take all the measurements available in your system. Also, try to avoid going too far off axis (i.e. don't measure in locations outside the span of the front L and R speakers) and also avoid measuring too close to the back wall. More info and a diagram available here.


Thanks Pepar, That makes more sense. Also that link is great info, I learned something just reading it for 5 minutes, Thanks.....:T


----------



## tcarcio

Anyone here use Audyssey with the Anti mode ? If so did you run it before or after Audyssey.


----------



## tcarcio

What no one? Don't make me come over there.....:foottap::bigsmile:


----------



## recruit

tcarcio said:


> Anyone here use Audyssey with the Anti mode ? If so did you run it before or after Audyssey.


I really do not see the point in using the 2 as Audyssey should be enough to take care of the sub, but saying that what version of Audyssey do you have?


----------



## pepar

tcarcio said:


> What no one? Don't make me come over there.....:foottap::bigsmile:


Maybe you should ask your question on an Antimode thread? 

Jeff
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tcarcio

recruit said:


> I really do not see the point in using the 2 as Audyssey should be enough to take care of the sub, but saying that what version of Audyssey do you have?


Well I have the antimode so I figured it can't hurt. I have the Marantz SR5004 so I think it is MultEQ but not XT. Am I wasteing my time with the antimode? I really don't know how good Audyssey is in the lower freq's but I know the Antimode works very well for that.


----------



## gdstupak

Audyssey alone probably works great with the standard 5.1 THX set up where all main speakers are small and send all bass to one subwoofer. I say this because the Audyssey listens once and makes it's adjustments, it doesn't listen afterward to make sure everything sounds correct. If you have more than one subwoofer, Audessey doesn't take in to account that at some frequencies the subs might be out of phase and you get no sound, no matter how high the volume level is.
With my system I have the 2 12" subwoofers in the main speakers and also 2 outboard subs. When the Audyssey gets done with it's testing and then I play my test cd's, there are always frequencies where the subs don't play well with each other. As an example, my speakers might be level at 85db from 20khz down to 60hz, then 50hz has nothing (even though the drivers are shakin' their butts off). Then 40hz might be back up to 85db, then 32hz has nothing.
I use my outboard sub eq's to adjust the phase, crossover, and volume for each sub and I can get them both to work together again.
So how I make adjustments is:
1. (with Audyssey off) level all my speakers from 20khz down to 20hz with outboard eq's.
2. run Audyssey set up.
3. listen with test cd's and re-level all speakers with outboard eq's (usually Audyssey's levels will be good from 80hz on up, but I always have to play with several sub frequencies).


----------



## tcarcio

That works great if you have an outboard EQ with controls you can manually adjust but with the antimode it is all done internally and I have no ability to adjust. I was told Audyssey goes down to 10hz but only reads out down to 63hz which I find odd that if they were going to eq down to 10hz they wouldn't allow a manual adjustment or readout afterward. So I still don't know if I am wasteing my time with antimode or not. I will try to run each individually and see which sounds better.


----------



## gdstupak

OK.
I was unfamiliar with antimode.


----------



## recruit

tcarcio said:


> Well I have the antimode so I figured it can't hurt. I have the Marantz SR5004 so I think it is MultEQ but not XT. Am I wasteing my time with the antimode? I really don't know how good Audyssey is in the lower freq's but I know the Antimode works very well for that.


Sometimes I have found that introducing too much EQ can kill the dynamics of the sound or bass that you hear, best thing to do would be to take the Antimode out of the loop and just use Audyssyey and see if you like the bass without the Antimode?

But its not to say that I am 100% right I am just talking from my experiences with using too much EQ, it is your ears that can make the final judgement so trust them :bigsmile:


----------



## pepar

*First DSX experience*

I am working my way through the floor at CEDIA. Lots to see .. and hear. Close to the end of the day I got to the Integra booth. In the demo room they were showing the DHC-80.2. Unfortunately, they had not been able to calibrate the system (with MultEQ XT 32/Sub EQ HT) due to the noise levels in the hall when they set up. They said that they hoped to set it up after hours today. I sat through the main demo and then through a "custom" demo for myself and Craig .. with only the two of us. Going back tomorrow - if they get Audyssey set up - will be interesting and the best A/B of uncorrected vs. full blown MultEQ XT 32/Sub EQ HT. Hopefully, my audio memory is up to the task.

Anyway, my main reason for going to CEDIA was to hear DSX and that I did. They used the 80.2 pre/pro and their amps, though I forget which, and Atlantic Technology speakers in a 5.2 configuration. For the first demo, I sat in the middle of first row (out of two). First up was Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds at Radio City on Blu-ray in TrueHD. When they switched on DSX Wides and Heights, the sound changed .. more open and wider, but I could not hear any change in the height of the soundstage. Next was a scene from I Am Legend where Wil Smith's character was "hunting" deer in the Times Square section of Manhattan. Again, it was started in TrueHD and switched to DSX mode with Wides and Heights. And again the sound changed .. opened up, wider but still I could not hear any change in height. After the demo ended, we hung around. Actually we walked out one door and came back in the other. Pretty soon another Integra guy came in we started asking some questions, mainly would he skip the Integra spiel on their policies toward custom installers and get right to the two movie sequences and switch back and forth between 5.2 and 9.2 with DSX. Oh yeah, we had moved to the back row.

Up came Dave and Tim in TrueHD ... listen, listen .. add DSX. What a difference a row made! Not only did the soundstage widen, but it got a bit taller as well. The screen was fairly high in relation to our eyes, but the main speakers were towers sitting on the floor.. considerably lower than the screen. Adding the Heights "pulled" the audio from a plane about 4' off the floor to a band 4' to maybe 7' off the floor and encompassed the image. Back to TrueHD and then back to DSX. Along with stretching the soundstage up, the widening was now more than just ... generic widening. Tim Reynolds guitar, from its spot in the left channel all of a sudden widened to about 3'. Ditto on the other side for Dave's guitar.

Then he moved to the I Am Legend scene. Started with TrueHD and then added DSX. I did have to get used to having some of the sound events occuring "outside" the image - so far we have seen ZERO demos with AT screens - and I was concerned that making the front stage even wider would exacerbate that for me. But that was not the case. The sound of the car stayed with the car on screen and only moved off the screen when the car did. When the pigeons took flight, they fluttered on the screen and then moved out of frame above the screen .. and the sound followed them. The same thing we noticed with the car we also heard with the herd of deer. Clop, clop panned across the screen in the fast-moving stampede and right - and left - OFF the screen.

I'm sure that these two scenes were chosen because of how they "work" with DSX and I'm just as sure that some could be found that work ... less well. (Neither of these had vocals/voices mixed into the L&R/surrounds when the artist/actor was in the center of the screen.) And the angles seem to be very important. Up close with the angles of the Wides and Heights too large and the effect did not work. But from farther away in the second row, things snapped into place and "work" they did! I consider it an enhancement/improvement in the home theater experience, incremental but better nonetheless.

We will go back and hopefully listen again ... from the second row ... with MultEQ XT 32. I see from the show guide that "Audyssey" is listed in the Denon/Marantz booth. Maybe I'll get a chance to meet Chris.


----------



## recruit

Thanks for sharing this info pepar as I have never heard what the new DSX can do, so it certainly seems to work quite well with some movies, I look forward to hearing all about the Audyssey 32 demo so keep us posted?


----------



## pepar

recruit said:


> Thanks for sharing this info pepar as I have never heard what the new DSX can do, so it certainly seems to work quite well with some movies, I look forward to hearing all about the Audyssey 32 demo so keep us posted?


Well I've got my fingers crossed that they were able to get through the calibration after the crowd left - and Earthquake's sine wave sweeps ended! :bigsmile:


----------



## tcarcio

recruit said:


> Sometimes I have found that introducing too much EQ can kill the dynamics of the sound or bass that you hear, best thing to do would be to take the Antimode out of the loop and just use Audyssyey and see if you like the bass without the Antimode?
> 
> But its not to say that I am 100% right I am just talking from my experiences with using too much EQ, it is your ears that can make the final judgement so trust them :bigsmile:


I agree. It makes sense. I will try with and without this weekend and see what I like. Thanks.:T


----------



## perritterd

Hello. I got a question. I ran the REW program for my SW and averaged 8 pos. (basically, the same 8 pos. that I ran for the Aud. mic) and the result produced far too much "booming" bass...it also produced 12 filters (BFD 1100P) for my SW. What I did was turned down the trim for the SW that was generated by Audyssey, which I ran after doing the 8 mic. position average. Can anyone tell me if this was the wrong thing to do-turning down the trim after Aud. to reduce the "Booming" bass, or, what would be the best way to remedy the booming coming from my SW? Turning down the trim definitely solved the problem...

Bob.


----------



## pepar

perritterd said:


> Hello. I got a question. I ran the REW program for my SW and averaged 8 pos. (basically, the same 8 pos. that I ran for the Aud. mic) and the result produced far too much "booming" bass...it also produced 12 filters (BFD 1100P) for my SW. What I did was turned down the trim for the SW that was generated by Audyssey, which I ran after doing the 8 mic. position average. Can anyone tell me if this was the wrong thing to do-turning down the trim after Aud. to reduce the "Booming" bass, or, what would be the best way to remedy the booming coming from my SW? Turning down the trim definitely solved the problem...
> 
> Bob.


Hi Bob,

Let me make sure that I have the order of these things correct. You first did an 8-position setup of Audyssey and then you ran REW and generated a filter set for the BFD? And then you thought the bass was too boomy?

Jeff


----------



## perritterd

pepar said:


> Hi Bob,
> 
> Let me make sure that I have the order of these things correct. You first did an 8-position setup of Audyssey and then you ran REW and generated a filter set for the BFD? And then you thought the bass was too boomy?
> 
> Jeff


Hi Jeff...No, I shut off Audyssey, ran the REW for 8 different mic positions, got an avg. for the 8 pos., which I used for the 1100P, and then re-ran Aud. and the results of that was the huge booming that I got from my SW-bad enough that I just turned down the trim from +7.5 to +3.5...

Bob


----------



## pepar

perritterd said:


> Hi Jeff...No, I shut off Audyssey, ran the REW for 8 different mic positions, got an avg. for the 8 pos., which I used for the 1100P, and then re-ran Aud. and the results of that was the huge booming that I got from my SW-bad enough that I just turned down the trim from +7.5 to +3.5...
> 
> Bob


Well, that is the order that is recommended. For setting up Audyssey, did you follow the recommendations for where - and where not - to place the mic?

Did you try Audyssey w/o the BFD?

Jeff


----------



## perritterd

pepar said:


> Well, that is the order that is recommended. For setting up Audyssey, did you follow the recommendations for where - and where not - to place the mic?
> 
> Did you try Audyssey w/o the BFD?
> 
> Jeff


The only order I know about is to start w/the #1 MLP and then move the mic L/R 2' , fwd. 2' and across the listening area, and then I place the mic in the center of the couch on either side of me-all a couple of inches above my ears on a mic stand. 

No, I didn't try it without the BFD...Aud. set all my speaker dist. and levels perfectly-all matching for each set of speakers for dist. and levels! Best result I've ever gotten except for the SW. I did see in my REW graph that I had "3" Nulls (Dips?) between 30-80 hz. that were kind of deep. I am beginning to think that it is a room issue and I might need to move some things around.

Bob


----------



## pepar

perritterd said:


> The only order I know about is to start w/the #1 MLP and then move the mic L/R 2' , fwd. 2' and across the listening area, and then I place the mic in the center of the couch on either side of me-all a couple of inches above my ears on a mic stand.
> 
> No, I didn't try it without the BFD...Aud. set all my speaker dist. and levels perfectly-all matching for each set of speakers for dist. and levels! Best result I've ever gotten except for the SW. I did see in my REW graph that I had "3" Nulls (Dips?) between 30-80 hz. that were kind of deep. I am beginning to think that it is a room issue and I might need to move some things around.
> 
> Bob


You can't EQ out nulls. You could try moving the sub around for a better location and maybe lessen them a bit. 

For the measurements, I meant to not measure too close to a wall.

I would at least try Audyssey by itself.

Jeff


----------



## perritterd

Will do Jeff...thanks for the assistance.

Bob


----------



## pepar

perritterd said:


> Will do Jeff...thanks for the assistance.
> 
> Bob


Pls post your experience!

Jeff


----------



## sub_crazy

I noticed pre-pro's and AVR's are starting to ship with the new Audyssey XT32, anyone have it already and is it worth an upgrade? 

I was thinking about a Integra DHC-80.2 to replace my Onkyo 886P but thought I might ask if anyone has made the jump and is it worth it.


----------



## gperkins_1973

Hi Chaps,

I have a question to ask....

As you or most off you may be aware I am making two subs with 3 frequency tunes.

Tomorrow I will be setting them up and re running Audyssey.

From memory I ran Audyssey first and tweaked if needed be with the BFD (although I have a flat response so the BFD is not required). What I need to know is which would be the best tune to run Audyssey on. I know that Audyssey tends to lift the lower bass region which is what I like so I don't know whether it would be best to run it on the 12.5hz, 17.5hz or 21.5 hz tune.

Obviously I can't keep re running Audyssey everytime I change the tune on the sub which I don't think I should have to as I didn't when I had the SVS PB13 ultra.

Perhaps someone could guide me in this matter so that I know where the best to start is rather than go around in circles.

Thanking you as always chaps.

Graham


----------



## pepar

sub_crazy said:


> I noticed pre-pro's and AVR's are starting to ship with the new Audyssey XT32, anyone have it already and is it worth an upgrade?
> 
> I was thinking about a Integra DHC-80.2 to replace my Onkyo 886P but thought I might ask if anyone has made the jump and is it worth it.


It should be worth it because it brings a much higher resolution filter to the main channels. With them reproducing down into the region where most home theaters are plagued with room modes, more precisely tailored filters should make a difference.

Also, anyone with a standalone Sub EQ/AS-EQ1 could move that piece to another system .. or sell it.

Jeff


----------



## laser188139

gperkins_1973 said:


> ... I know that Audyssey tends to lift the lower bass region which is what I like so I don't know whether it would be best to run it on the 12.5hz, 17.5hz or 21.5 hz tune.
> 
> Obviously I can't keep re running Audyssey everytime I change the tune on the sub ...


Hello Graham,

Were you thinking of changing the tuning often? I would expect you would need to rerun Audyssey every time you changed the tuning. If you have a receiver that supports Audyssey Pro, you could save the Audyssey calibration for each tuning, and just reload it when you change. 

With my Hsu sub that supports two tunings, I ran Audyssey setup on each and took measurements with REW to determine which worked best in my room. (Along with rerunning Audyssey setup when I moved the sub and the mains. I got lots of practice.) The measurements let me choose the one configuration that worked best for me -- but I had no intention of changing between them regularly. Because of your low turning frequencies, if you want to make a decision based on measurements, you will want to use an individually calibrated microphone to be confident of your measurements that low. 

Have fun,
Bill


----------



## perritterd

pepar said:


> Pls post your experience!
> 
> Jeff


MODERATORS: I do not know how to link these graphs to my Post here, so if you need to move them, can you please link them back to this post? :R

Jeff, I have been working on my Audyssey issues and the following graphs are the results I got from a 6 Position Mic AVERAGE:

1. First is for 1100P with no filters or Aud. applied:
2. 2nd. is for 1100P with Filters applied and NO Audyssey
3. 3rd. is for 1100P with Filters applied and Audyssey On and redone after applying filters in #2.

It appears to me that Audyssey has helped things quite a bit... 

Please NOTE: my SW only goes down to about 28hz...

Bob


----------



## gperkins_1973

I have a BFD 1100 model and I run the Audyssey calibration first and then fine tune with the BFD. Not BFD first and then Audyssey.

I found that the results with running Audyssey 2nd gave worse results.

In your case it looks like you have less low end.

cheers

Graham


----------



## perritterd

gperkins_1973 said:


> I have a BFD 1100 model and I run the Audyssey calibration first and then fine tune with the BFD. Not BFD first and then Audyssey.
> 
> I found that the results with running Audyssey 2nd gave worse results.
> 
> In your case it looks like you have less low end.
> 
> cheers
> 
> Graham


Hi Graham, yes, it would appear that way, but actually, I have a very poor SW :rolleyesno: and it is limited to about 30-150hz. I am using a 80hz. crossover for my mains and I only bothered setting up the 1100P with filters from 30-90hz and set my LPF to 120hz. Nothing I can do about the cheap SW I got at this time-later, it will be replaced! 

Bob


----------



## gperkins_1973

Fair do's matey, then it looks like Audyssey has done a good job.

cheers

Graham


----------



## tcarcio

Anyone here find it useless to use the antimode and the Audyssey MultEq? I am thinking of just selling the Antimode so I am just looking for opinions.


----------



## sub_crazy

tcarcio said:


> Anyone here find it useless to use the antimode and the Audyssey MultEq? I am thinking of just selling the Antimode so I am just looking for opinions.


That depends, if it is the normal Audyssey MultEQ then the Antimode would probably come in handy but with the MutEQ XT I no longer need to use my SMS-1. I would suppose it would be the same for the new XT 32 that is just coming out but I have not tried it yet.

This is all assuming you have set-up Audyssey XT correctly, use a tri-pod and follow the preferred order of mic placement which is in the manual. I only did 3 mic placements at first with Audyssey and just laid the mic on top of the headrests but was not impressed with the SQ at all compared to having it off. After I read through a Audyssey set-up guide I did it the way it was explained and the difference was day and night. I now use a tri-pod and run 8 measurement points as outlined in both the guide I read and the owners manual.

For me the shocking thing was when I finished the proper Audyssey XT set-up then went to my SMS-1 to correct the 2 major peaks I have in my room the graph was flatter than I could ever achieve with just the SMS-1.


----------



## Moonfly

tcarcio said:


> Anyone here find it useless to use the antimode and the Audyssey MultEq? I am thinking of just selling the Antimode so I am just looking for opinions.


I demo'd the antimode and found it didnt really offer me anything over Multi EQ XT and didnt buy it as a result. Its a good device, but if used properly XT is pretty good too.


----------



## recruit

Moonfly said:


> I demo'd the antimode and found it didnt really offer me anything over Multi EQ XT and didnt buy it as a result. Its a good device, but if used properly XT is pretty good too.


Agreed Dan, the Audyssey Multi EQ XT can work very well indeed for any room issues that the sub introduces and I found that no other EQ device was needed, and don't forget it covers nearly the whole frequency band not just the sub :T


----------



## Moonfly

Also with Audyssey, is that it has the ability to tailor its correction curves for the speakers to best integrate with its correction curve for the subwoofer(s). Thats a feature few stand alone devices will give you, and the only 2 I know of that can do that, are both Audyssey based systems.


----------



## tcarcio

Well my Marantz 5004 has MultEQ only no XT so I guess it might not be a good idea to get rid of the AM. I have to try and make some time to play some movies with and without and see what I think. My son is getting married on Halloween so I don't have allot of time this week.


----------



## Moonfly

XT is more powerful than the non XT version, but multi eq will still do the sub and speaker eq, so should still be decent, it just has less resolution. I wouldnt like to guess on how the antimode and multi eq compare power wise though.


----------



## tcarcio

Funny how it doesn't seem to be that many people are running both? Either that or they are just not talking about it.


----------



## recruit

tcarcio said:


> Funny how it doesn't seem to be that many people are running both? Either that or they are just not talking about it.


Sometimes too much EQ can have a negative effect on the sound by killing the Dynamics, a good example is with PEQ's but could still apply to other versions of EQ.


----------



## tcarcio

recruit said:


> Sometimes too much EQ can have a negative effect on the sound by killing the Dynamics, a good example is with PEQ's but could still apply to other versions of EQ.


I absolutley agree. I still think my B+W's sound better in 2 channel for music with no EQ. Also I think music in DTS HD master audio on BD with no eq is better to my ears. I really only like useing EQ with movies.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

recruit said:


> Sometimes too much EQ can have a negative effect on the sound by killing the Dynamics, a good example is with PEQ's but could still apply to other versions of EQ.


Too much is, of course, wrong. It is not inherent in EQ but in its misuse.



tcarcio said:


> I absolutley agree. I still think my B+W's sound better in 2 channel for music with no EQ. Also I think music in DTS HD master audio on BD with no eq is better to my ears. I really only like useing EQ with movies.


Spock would tell you that is illogical.


----------



## atledreier

I hear so many say that EQ kills the dynamics. I have never been able to get my head around how that could be. Other than taming peaks that you have gotten used to there is no reason dynamics should be affected at all? Maybe compression due to limited headroom, but then you are doing it wrong, i'm assuming.


----------



## tcarcio

Well I"ll put it this way. After I run Audyssey it just seems to remove the fullness of the music with my B+W's and doing a head to head comparison it just sounds better to me without the EQ. Now I suppose I could go in manually to Audyssey and tweek the EQ but it just sounds great to me without it so I don't see the point. I have had some nice outboard graphic eq's but I always seemed to change very little anyway except maybe to boost the lows but with my Danley I get plenty of that already.


----------



## atledreier

I'm guessing that 'fullness' is some fortunate peaks in the response. Perfectly legit, and preference has precedence any day!


----------



## gdstupak

tcarcio said:


> I have had some nice outboard graphic eq's but I always seemed to change very little anyway except maybe to boost the lows but with my Danley I get plenty of that already.


Are you adjusting by ear what sounds good to you while playing whatever music happens to be playing on your system, or do you actually tune your system with test equipment?
"Too much eq" makes no sense to me. The point of eq'ing is to get a flat response from the equipment.
My dad and I discuss the qualities of analog vs digital sound reproduction. He likes the analog because it sounds more pleasing to the ear, don't try to tell him that 'distortion' is what makes it sound pleasing, although not accurate. The same can be said for non-eq'd systems. 
I'm a purist, I like to hear sound the way the recording engineer wanted it to sound. My eq and subs are always on.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

tcarcio said:


> Well I"ll put it this way. After I run Audyssey it just seems to remove the fullness of the music with my B+W's and doing a head to head comparison it just sounds better to me without the EQ.


It is possible, and do not take this too personally, that you are accustomed to the room's modal bumps and now miss them. 



> Now I suppose I could go in manually to Audyssey and tweek the EQ but it just sounds great to me without it so I don't see the point.


 There is very little you can do even if you tried as Audyssey, except for the Pro kit, is pretty much a closed system. Have you considered simply bumping up the sub a bit?



> I have had some nice outboard graphic eq's but I always seemed to change very little anyway except maybe to boost the lows but with my Danley I get plenty of that already.


Do you have any idea of how your room/system measures with or without Audyssey?


----------



## tcarcio

gdstupak said:


> Are you adjusting by ear what sounds good to you while playing whatever music happens to be playing on your system, or do you actually tune your system with test equipment?
> .


I am not adjusting anything. I run Audyssey and then when I listen to 2 channel music I go back and forth between Audyssey and no EQ at all and no EQ sounds better to me.


----------



## tcarcio

Kal Rubinson said:


> It is possible, and do not take this too personally, that you are accustomed to the room's modal bumps and now miss them.
> 
> There is very little you can do even if you tried as Audyssey, except for the Pro kit, is pretty much a closed system. Have you considered simply bumping up the sub a bit?
> 
> Do you have any idea of how your room/system measures with or without Audyssey?



When I had the sms-1 it graphed pretty flat with good room gain.


----------



## gdstupak

tcarcio said:


> I am not adjusting anything. I run Audyssey and then when I listen to 2 channel music I go back and forth between Audyssey and no EQ at all and no EQ sounds better to me.


I was asking about adjusting your outboard eq's and boosting the lows.
As far as Audyssey goes, I haven't noticed much difference when it's on or off but keep it on because it should be doing something with the time domain and other stuff. What does make a huge difference are my outboard eq's which I can't live without.


----------



## tcarcio

OH, I don't have the outboard EQ's anymore I am just running Audyssey and the Antimode. I was refering to when I had them. I just think Audyssey is not EQ'ing to my likeing for 2 channel.


----------



## Zeitgeist

tcarcio said:


> I am not adjusting anything. I run Audyssey and then when I listen to 2 channel music I go back and forth between Audyssey and no EQ at all and no EQ sounds better to me.


Dumb question, and maybe it's already been discussed... but have you tried using something like Room EQ Wizard? Or some other RTA?

That would without a doubt show before/after Audyssey.

You might still prefer the un-EQ'd tone......... but then you could see how Audyssey flattens the response..


----------



## tcarcio

Well I don't have the extra cash at the moment to get the tools I would need to use REW. I repositioned my speakers a bit and ran Audyssey again today and it sounds terrible. It really is sucking the midrange out of my B+W's. I will have to try and spend more time with it and see if I am doing something wrong but I don't think I am. With my sons wedding this weekend I don't have to much time but I will get to it next week and see what I can do.


----------



## gdstupak

More than likely the Audyssey is adjusting properly. As others have mentioned, you are probably used to the un-eq'd sound and like it, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Back in the late 80's I used to be a bass hog and would only listen with the bass knob turned up, the treble neutral, and the x-tra bass button engaged. I would try listening with everything set at neutral but that only lasted for several minutes because it sounded so flat and un-dynamic to me.
Then I read an article (who knows, maybe Kal wrote it) about setting proper neutral adjustments. The author suggested that it would probably sound flat to people who are used to listening to the bloated sound of excess. He said to listen for 2-3 weeks, resisting the temptation to switch back to the old settings. Then after several weeks try it with the old settings and see what sounds best.
It worked for me, after 3 weeks I turned the bass back up and couldn't stand it. The neutral settings sounded so much clearer, more natural.
Try it yourself with the Audyssey.


----------



## Zeitgeist

tcarcio said:


> Well I don't have the extra cash at the moment to get the tools I would need to use REW. I repositioned my speakers a bit and ran Audyssey again today and it sounds terrible. It really is sucking the midrange out of my B+W's. I will have to try and spend more time with it and see if I am doing something wrong but I don't think I am. With my sons wedding this weekend I don't have to much time but I will get to it next week and see what I can do.


It's just $45 for a db meter... and just about any computer with a line input will work.
There is some learning curve... but it makes it easy to see what's going on.

Wonder if you could have some peaks or nulls that are screwing with your mid frequencies.

Or maybe you're just accustomed to how it sounds un-flattened. Flat response isn't always best sounding. 

Who knows :wave:

Is it any content in particular that you're listening to and it sounds bad?

I've heard some stuff that that has some frequencies over/under emphasized and it sounds fine - but with a flatter EQ - it then sounds bad. But that's a mastering issue, not a reproduction issue.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

gdstupak said:


> Then I read an article (who knows, maybe Kal wrote it) about setting proper neutral adjustments. The author suggested that it would probably sound flat to people who are used to listening to the bloated sound of excess. He said to listen for 2-3 weeks, resisting the temptation to switch back to the old settings. Then after several weeks try it with the old settings and see what sounds best.
> It worked for me, after 3 weeks I turned the bass back up and couldn't stand it. The neutral settings sounded so much clearer, more natural.
> Try it yourself with the Audyssey.


I did, indeed, write that. We become adapted to what we have and, implicitly, accept it as being correct. Doing what is suggested above turns the tables on our expectations but, of course, is not a completely unbiased paradigm. It does make the point, though.


----------



## tcarcio

Zeitgeist said:


> It's just $45 for a db meter... and just about any computer with a line input will work.
> There is some learning curve... but it makes it easy to see what's going on.
> 
> Wonder if you could have some peaks or nulls that are screwing with your mid frequencies.
> 
> Or maybe you're just accustomed to how it sounds un-flattened. Flat response isn't always best sounding.
> 
> Who knows :wave:
> 
> Is it any content in particular that you're listening to and it sounds bad?
> 
> I've heard some stuff that that has some frequencies over/under emphasized and it sounds fine - but with a flatter EQ - it then sounds bad. But that's a mastering issue, not a reproduction issue.


I have a db meter but it is a RS and not well regarded for REW. Plus when I had my sms it did show a pretty flat response so I think I just need to spend more time tweeking things to get it right. Either that or I just don't like what Audyssey is doing to my B+W's. Hopefully I will get more time to spend with it later. As far as content it really is mainly the same type of music which is mostly rock or classic rock and it just sounds better without EQ.


----------



## tcarcio

gdstupak said:


> More than likely the Audyssey is adjusting properly. As others have mentioned, you are probably used to the un-eq'd sound and like it, and there is nothing wrong with that.
> Back in the late 80's I used to be a bass hog and would only listen with the bass knob turned up, the treble neutral, and the x-tra bass button engaged. I would try listening with everything set at neutral but that only lasted for several minutes because it sounded so flat and un-dynamic to me.
> Then I read an article (who knows, maybe Kal wrote it) about setting proper neutral adjustments. The author suggested that it would probably sound flat to people who are used to listening to the bloated sound of excess. He said to listen for 2-3 weeks, resisting the temptation to switch back to the old settings. Then after several weeks try it with the old settings and see what sounds best.
> It worked for me, after 3 weeks I turned the bass back up and couldn't stand it. The neutral settings sounded so much clearer, more natural.
> Try it yourself with the Audyssey.


You could be right. Audyssey may be making it sound better to the room than me.....


----------



## tcarcio

Just a follow up. I have found in my system that Audyssey front, which does not apply any EQ to the front L and R speakers, is what sounds best to me with my B+W's. I did allot of switching of crossover and speaker positioning and found that just letting Audyssey EQ everything but my fronts sounds pretty good to me.:clap:


----------



## eyecatcher127

anyone upgrade from a multeq to multeq-xt? I know it could be hard to compare, but an any sonic improvements attributed to the increase in satellite resolution?


----------



## tcarcio

Just a question on the mics. I have the Marantz sr5004 and as far as I know it uses the AMC1 mic. I have seen some people mention a foam windscreen on that mic but I did not get that with my system. Does anyone know if I need to have one? When I see pics of the mic I never see anything like that on them so that is why I am asking.


----------



## cavchameleon

tcarcio said:


> Just a question on the mics. I have the Marantz sr5004 and as far as I know it uses the AMC1 mic. I have seen some people mention a foam windscreen on that mic but I did not get that with my system. Does anyone know if I need to have one? When I see pics of the mic I never see anything like that on them so that is why I am asking.


Hi tcarcio,

I've had 6 units with Audyssey and none of the mics came with a foam windscreen. You do not need one and it may in fact change the calibration by attenuating the very high freq. IMO, you'll never need one - windscreens are for that reason - to decrease noise when it's windy (I do a lot of video and when outside, I use very high quality windscreens, but never use one inside as it a compromise - needed when outside). If you have wind noise problems inside, then you have another issue to worry about (you should not have any ceiling fans on when doing your calibrations - in fact, shut all noise making units down: fans, HVAC, fridge, etc.). IMO, it's best to have it as quiet as possible.


----------



## tcarcio

cavchameleon said:


> Hi tcarcio,
> 
> I've had 6 units with Audyssey and none of the mics came with a foam windscreen. You do not need one and it may in fact change the calibration by attenuating the very high freq. IMO, you'll never need one - windscreens are for that reason - to decrease noise when it's windy (I do a lot of video and when outside, I use very high quality windscreens, but never use one inside as it a compromise - needed when outside). If you have wind noise problems inside, then you have another issue to worry about (you should not have any ceiling fans on when doing your calibrations - in fact, shut all noise making units down: fans, HVAC, fridge, etc.). IMO, it's best to have it as quiet as possible.


Thanks Ray, That is what I thought also. I do shut down as much as possible when doing the cal but I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't another reason it might be needed on the mic. Happy Holiday's.:T


----------



## cavchameleon

tcarcio said:


> Thanks Ray, That is what I thought also. I do shut down as much as possible when doing the cal but I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't another reason it might be needed on the mic. Happy Holiday's.:T


You're welcome! Happy Holiday's to you also!


----------



## håkan

Hello
I have Buy a Marantz AV7005 but how to find Audyssey pro i the machine i can not change the eq i the Av7005 and it sound not god when Audyssey is working i sounds boring .


----------



## pepar

perritterd said:


> MODERATORS: I do not know how to link these graphs to my Post here, so if you need to move them, can you please link them back to this post? :R
> 
> Jeff, I have been working on my Audyssey issues and the following graphs are the results I got from a 6 Position Mic AVERAGE:
> 
> 1. First is for 1100P with no filters or Aud. applied:
> 2. 2nd. is for 1100P with Filters applied and NO Audyssey
> 3. 3rd. is for 1100P with Filters applied and Audyssey On and redone after applying filters in #2.
> 
> It appears to me that Audyssey has helped things quite a bit...
> 
> Please NOTE: my SW only goes down to about 28hz...
> 
> Bob


Yes, it really smoothed the upper frequencies.

Jeff


----------



## pepar

håkan said:


> Hello
> I have Buy a Marantz AV7005 but how to find Audyssey pro i the machine i can not change the eq i the Av7005 and it sound not god when Audyssey is working i sounds boring .


Boring?

Jeff


----------



## gdstupak

pepar said:


> Boring?
> Jeff


A properly calibrated system probably does sound boring to someone used to the extra 'boom boom' the way most systems are set up.


----------



## håkan

pepar said:


> Boring?
> 
> Jeff


Yes boring flat no animation in sound the music is dead tanks to Audyssey 
i believe the where some uppgrade on Audyssey but i was misstaken on it 
same old junk and not working .


----------



## pepar

håkan said:


> Yes boring flat no animation in sound the music is dead tanks to Audyssey
> i believe the where some uppgrade on Audyssey but i was misstaken on it
> same old junk and not working .


Marantz website says the AV7005 is Audyssey Pro "ready" but it is not listed on Audyssey's website.

gdstupak might be right. To someone not used to a reference calibration, it could sound "boring" especially the low end.

Jeff


----------



## Kal Rubinson

pepar said:


> Marantz website says the AV7005 is Audyssey Pro "ready" but it is not listed on Audyssey's website.


But the latest Pro software supports it just fine.



> gdstupak might be right. To someone not used to a reference calibration, it could sound "boring" especially the low end.


Yup.


----------



## håkan

Kal Rubinson said:


> But the latest Pro software supports it just fine.


I dont whant to buy the pro software fore someting i all ready have buy
The only thing Audyssey whant is to earn money on some junk the sold to the manufactures and cheat the buyer like to use the Audyssey.


----------



## pepar

What are you using to translate? :unbelievable:


----------



## håkan

pepar said:


> What are you using to translate? :unbelievable:


A swedish english lexicon if i use goggle you cant read what i write
and i only translate some words.


----------



## pepar

Are you saying that Audyssey is junk?


----------



## Kal Rubinson

håkan said:


> I dont whant to buy the pro software fore someting i all ready have buy


Well, you bought Audyssey which you may or may not have used properly. Also, it is possible that you, like some others, do not like a flat response. You did not buy AudysseyPro.



> The only thing Audyssey whant is to earn money on some junk the sold to the manufactures and cheat the buyer like to use the Audyssey.


If you want to *play *with EQ, you should have bought some other product. However, the AV7005 lets you play with options like Audyssey, Audyssey Flat, Audyssey (No front EQ) as well as several levels of DynamicEQ. Have you tried them?

BTW, I do appreciate your effort to communicate.


----------



## pepar

Kal Rubinson said:


> BTW, I do appreciate your effort to communicate.


I do also. I wish I knew what he is trying to communicate.

Jeff


----------



## håkan

pepar said:


> I do also. I wish I knew what he is trying to communicate.
> 
> Jeff


This is goggle translate

why is audyesy so badly have been trying to get to since 2006, but gives a flat, dull sound why do the manufacturers of the scrap when it does not work.
bought a new AV7005 and thought it got better but it is not as bad as it was in 2006 with a flat, dull sound because who wants to listen to such sounds.
And why can not I adjust retrospectively in EQ when audyesy have made their sweep.
I've also made sweeps of the room and has a small spike at 50hz but nothing that interferes with, yet it only gets between registers when running with audysey


----------



## recruit

I would try checking your levels with an SPL meter to see if the speakers are all set to 75db or near it, as volume difference can make a huge difference if not accurate enough :rolleyesno:


----------



## pepar

håkan said:


> This is goggle translate
> 
> why is audyesy so badly have been trying to get to since 2006, but gives a flat, dull sound why do the manufacturers of the scrap when it does not work.
> bought a new AV7005 and thought it got better but it is not as bad as it was in 2006 with a flat, dull sound because who wants to listen to such sounds.
> And why can not I adjust retrospectively in EQ when audyesy have made their sweep.
> I've also made sweeps of the room and has a small spike at 50hz but nothing that interferes with, yet it only gets between registers when running with audysey




That is easier to understand.

There is an Audyssey Pro kit that allows editing the target curve ... "adjust retrospectively in EQ"

The version of Audyssey in the receivers - the consumer version - does not have the edit feature.

The small spike at 50Hz on your sweeps, but is "between registers when running with audysey" is from the display on the 7005 being only a very crude representation of the room measurement and what Audyssey is doing. In my opinion, that display is useless.

The dull sound could be from a few different things. There are setup guidelines that have been developed to help with problems like that. My sound is not dull and neither is the sound of nearly everyone else.

Jeff


----------

