# The astounding new AS-EQ1 SubEQ goes on sale!



## Ron Stimpson

*SVS AS-EQ1 SubEQ: World's most advanced bass room correction technology, made affordable. * 










MSRP $799 (Limited time pre-order price: $699 ​ 
*Note: Shipping starts April/May 2009* 
*
Special pre-order price, limited production. Early Spring availability. *

Like it or not, most rooms corrupt even the best subwoofers, ours included. Sometimes a bit, sometimes so badly that music and movie bass is hopelessly muddled, unbalanced, and well, _wrong_. If you spent money on a quality SVS subwoofer, we already know you are in search of deep and natural sounding bass that sounds _just right_ instead. So while we've arguably made the best subs in the world for years now, we couldn't fix your room.

Till _now_ that is. If you follow movie and music technology news, you might know this "box", the *AS-EQ1 SubEQ,* has been in development for over two years. SVS, working in partnership with *Audyssey Labs*, the most respected name in audio room-correction technology, has finally begun production. And so at long last they are available at a special pre-order price, for Spring delivery. Be one of the first with the power to get the most out of any sub (or subs), in any room. 

What do you get? Everything you need, in one slick looking, stand-alone box which neatly integrates into nearly any theater or music system. Fire up the graphical user interface (GUI) and operating software on your Window's laptop, and you'll experience virtually perfect bass in minutes. And we mean that, no matter how challenging your room or your subwoofer placement might be. In fact, we guarantee it. Acoustical nightmares are cleaned up fast as you can move the included microphone through your room. It's actually fun to use. Imagine. 


*Download our exclusive 2009 CES "cut sheet" on this amazing device here! *

Of course this is a flagship product, so inside are absolute state of the art components and proprietary Audyssey bass correction logic that actually listens to your sub. The *AS-EQ1* pulses your subwoofer with carefully calibrated tests sweeps and tones, and does this in up to 32 positions (standing, seated, you name it). When you are done, you don't have a sweet "spot" in your room, you have a "_sweet room_". Flat, even and "tight". This is simply the best possible bass you can get in every seat. And it's even smart enough to adjust for two subs, independently. Once they are put in phase by the box, it calculates the ideal flat frequency response for your sub, which most any music and movie audio professional will recommend. 



 

* AS-EQ1 SubEQ I/O on rear. 
Twin independent sub outputs. 
RCA monitor out for optimal sub/mains level matching.*





* Magnetic faceplate removed. 
Mic and GUI controls up front where you need them, hidden when you don't!*
​ Some AV receivers have decent capability to correct for room anomalies, but nothing, not even the previously most powerful professional solutions at Audyssey Labs, have more power to make your bass right. Since the GUI runs on your laptop, there's no need to even turn on your projector or TV. After a few minutes, guided step by step on screen, you are done. Replace the beautifully sculpted (and magnetically retained) aluminum faceplate, and it's time to rock an roll. One note: While we work in the audio business, even we hate reading manuals but you'll probably not even open ours, it's that intuitive to set up and use. Of course our famous lifetime technical support is available 7 days a week, thru SVS or one of our exclusive resellers outside the USA. 

The SubEQ results are just jaw-dropping. The worse your room is, the better this box works to make it right. It corrects for acoustical room anomalies not with the brute-force manipulation of crude IIR filters found in conventional PEQs, but instead with the finesse and sophistication of FIR-based filters which don’t cause phase/time-domain anomalies and distortions which corrupt your sound. So even if you picked horrible locations for your sub (or subs) the *AS-EQ1’s *highly sophisticated and Audyssey-optimized deep bass correction algorithms quickly pull into focus the flat, deep and naturally coherent bass you won't ever get with lesser technologies.

So even if you picked horrible locations for your sub (or subs) the *AS-EQ1* *measures for the effects in both time and **frequency domains*. 

**​ 
With the highly sophisticated and Audyssey-optimized deep bass correction algorithms, it quickly pulls into focus the flat, deep and naturally coherent bass you won't ever get with lesser solutions. 

This box might not be for dyed-in-the-wool "tweakers" who might want different frequency response curves (even if less accurate). While a conventional PEQ will invariably result in a less accurate frequency response, can cause noticeable artifacts, can't correct for more than one listening position, and can’t handle dual subs, it’s still better than nothing. So if you like spending nights and weekends wrestling with spreadsheets, SPL meters, difficult-to-learn measurement software, and endlessly tweaking your manual PEQ - well maybe the *AS-EQ1 *isn’t for you. For the rest of us who would rather be watching movies and listening to music with a minimum investment of time and learning curve, the AS-EQ1 is simply the most powerful, fastest, and easiest way to get stunning bass. 

It's also not a box you need if you are blessed with perfect room response already. Nearly no rooms are, but it happens. If you measure adequately flat bass, you might leave well enough alone. And of course, we don't recommend people buy an $800 bass-correction solution to use with mediocre subs either. If you have a sub that's not powerful enough or deep enough for your needs, it makes sense to upgrade there first naturally. 

But this still affordable box _is_ the best way to optimize any sub, even big "do it yourself" (DIY) subwoofers, virtually eliminating room factors that distort sound. Entry level customers with limited audio budgets might decide instead to just get a good current AV receiver offering less-robust correction systems to economize. No AVR-based room correction system has the sheer refinement and processing horsepower, nor can it cope with dual subs nearly as well. Leave the *AS-EQ1* as an upgrade on par with any consideration you put towards dual subs, or investing in any world-class sub from SVS such as our *PB13-Ultra* and* PC13-Ultra*, or top subs from elsewhere.


​ 

Above is but one quick 7 position correction done with two different model SVS subs plopped in an old home, with just basic setup. One in a corner one not, put where the subs looked right and fit into the available space. You can see the "before" results on the left of the chart. Not the worst frequency response you might have seen, but certainly nothing you want to show your mother. Much less your audio enthusiast friends.. Twin subs working this wacky just are _*not*_ going to sound focused, tight and well, right. PEQ experts can fix some of this, but with twin subs, well, forget about any sanity that weekend. Getting dual subs to "play nice" isn't twice as hard as optimizing one sub, sometimes, it's four times harder. No longer though. More results pages of real rooms we've visited around the world with early Beta versions of the AS-EQ1 will be posted here soon. 

These results then? Call it a 10 min "down an dirty" run through, as you might do just putting your system into a room for the first time. Yet, the AS-EQ1 is so powerful, you can *measure up to 32 positions in any room, for either one or two subs*. Take seated measurements where friends and family gather, and even some from common standing areas in your listening room. Measure wherever you care to create your sweet spot in the room. But because the *AS-EQ1* is measuring multiple locations, it's not making a sweet "spot" but a "_sweet room_". So goodbye to the uneven bass from seat to seat. Things bass fans once accepted as "the limitations of bass in a typical home". Accept this no longer. ​ 
And this SubEQ "talks" to your AVR too; allowing your receiver to runs its room correction, but leaving the far more complicated and processor intensive subwoofer correction to the *AS-EQ1*. These are nulls and peaks which defy "room treatments" such as bass traps, and would give even the most ardent user of old-fashioned PEQ devices fits. The heavy-duty DSP power isn't needed by everyone then, but it IS the fix many rooms need. The refinement over such un-corrected rooms is startling. Both audible and visual recorded results of "before" and "after" are typically quite obvious. How different those two curves actually _*sound*_ might not be so intuitive, but hearing it work makes believers out of virtually everyone without one of those perfect rooms (which again is nearly everyone). 



​ *
AS-EQ1 SubEQ top to bottom: front plate on, front plate off, rear shot *​ Even long-standing SVS staff have a new appreciation for how good our subs _*really*_ are after we worked with this new technology, and it's only after using it we agreed it's a "must have" we decided to build it. And it had to be easy to work. We admit it, at SVS we don't like spending time fiddling with room response with yesterday's tools. Actually watching movies and listening to music is what we like. 

Shipping should start first in Asia (most components are configured at a very high end firm in Taipei, final assembly and testing will be done in our Ohio factory however).* MSRP of this radical new device is $799. But given a lengthy pre-order, and to help resist recession pressures, we're going to kick start things at $699.* We're not sure how long our first run will last. Order soon to reserve yours now at this special price. Our widely acclaimed Customer Service department backs all users with questions and an on-line support page at SVS will make software updates as easy as opening the page here. 

Audio lovers, perfect bass is finally possible, easy, and downright fun to achieve. Your AV receiver investment is solidified since the *AS-EQ1 *is compatible with any sort you have. Your bass needs are covered no matter what your current or future room look like. Switch one on, run setup, and you won't ever switch it off. Harness the power and refinement of your system, and take the room out of the equation, finally. 

*Features* 


Driven by an advanced Digital Signal Processor (DSP) using sophisticated Audyssey customized 
room-correction algorithms
Utilizes Adaptive Low Frequency Correction Technology (ALFC) from Audyssey Lab the most advanced bass calibration method available to consumers today
Performs in both frequency and time domain, for superior artifact-free bass adapted for your room
Dual subwoofer processing for better blending and integration with main channels
FIR filters to avoid time/phase distortion inherent with IIR filters for superior bass clarity
 Corrects bass for an incredible 32 positions in horizontal and vertical space to cover any listening area
 Heavy-duty steel chassis with SVS's magnetically-retained CNC'd aluminum face-plate 
 Twin sub in, twin out, with multiple configuration modes. Mains level calibration signal output jack. 
 Easy-to-use laptop PC graphical user interface (GUI) and CD operating software and users' guide 
 Dedicated Audyssey microphone and AV receiver external calibration pass thru cables included 
 High quality, isolated 12V. power supply, and USB cable included
 On-line SVS tech support page for easy software updates, upgrades and news 
 Power and unit status LEDs 
 Front-panel easy access for calibration microphone and USB connection 
Final test and assembly in SVS's Ohio headquarters
Limited production, world-wide distribution only by exclusive SVS resellers


----------



## Sonnie

>


Wow! Now that is a smokin' flat response there. :unbelievable:


----------



## robbo266317

So you are going to buy two units, One for the front subs and one for the rear. :R


----------



## Sonnie

Probably just one... it has two sub outs, so I can use one output for the fronts and one for the rear. :yes:


----------



## CharlieU

My preorder is in. I have the same two subs they used for those graphs, so I have some pretty high expectations. We'll see if it's true in a few months.


----------



## cinema mad

This is an Awesome product 32 Mic positions :T , GoodBye DCX2496 Hello AS-EQ1..
Just one question Are Aussies included in this deal..:dunno:

Cheers...


----------



## tcarcio

Looks like an awesome unit, I cant wait for some of your reviews.:yes:


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

I like the fact that it's a full-sized component and will fit in and look good in an equipment rack, not like all other products in this category. :T

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## tonyvdb

:spend: I wish I had the cash, Thats a nice package for the price.


----------



## Ricci

It does look nice...I'm tempted...:spend:


----------



## stevez11

Will this work with windows vista and what are the demensions of the unit.


----------



## JimP

Sonnie said:


> Wow! Now that is a smokin' flat response there. :unbelievable:


....and goes on up to over 200hz. How'd they do that? :hide:


----------



## Ed Mullen

Yes, the AS-EQ1 is Windows based, but does anything work well with Vista? 

Exact dims are forthcoming as we wrap some design touches on the removeable magentically retained face plate, but it will be rack-mountable with L/R rack ears.


----------



## Ed Mullen

JimP said:


> ....and goes on up to over 200hz. How'd they do that? :hide:


All of our subwoofers have the ability to extend >200 Hz before they are externally low-passed by the surround sound processor. 

SVS amps do have an internal (non-user-adjustable) low-pass filter which starts to ramp down the response >350 Hz.

So the AS-EQ1 can/will EQ the subwoofer right up to its internal/inherent upper frequency limit. The unit itself has a brick-wall low pass at 1.4 kHz.


----------



## Ed Mullen

These dims will be very close to actual: 16.5” W x 7” D x 1.75” H (with feet and faceplate attached).


----------



## Bent

will this guy be distributed by Sonic Boom in Canada?


----------



## Ricci

What about the low end? How far down does the unit extend response correction?


----------



## Ed Mullen

Bent said:


> will this guy be distributed by Sonic Boom in Canada?



All SVS international dealers have the option to carry this product; you'll have to check with Mason at SBA to confirm availability.


----------



## Ed Mullen

Ricci said:


> What about the low end? How far down does the unit extend response correction?


There is no inherent lower limit on the unit; it has the processing power to correct to the single digits if the subwoofer is capable of same at normal volumes (and very few are of course).

It does have a very sophisticated subwoofer roll-off detection algorithm, and it will extend the response to the extent the subwoofer can comfortably handle same, and it will also sense if the subwoofer has a built-in high pass filter and it will not try to fight against it.


----------



## Bent

I'm going to contact SBA then, I have a DIY sealed 8ft^3 net with 2 15" RL-p's wired for 4 Ω total load driven by Adire's ADA 1200 watt plate amp. I'd think I qualifiy as being excluded from the "And of course, we don't recommend people buy an $800 bass-correction solution to use with mediocre subs either. If you have a sub that's not powerful enough or deep enough for your needs, it makes sense to upgrade there first naturally." catagory. I'm hoping there isn't a pre-requisite to own a SVS subwoofer first.

Also, your release states limited production - is that for the initial run, or is it going to be a limited availability item for it's full marketing life?


----------



## Ed Mullen

Bent said:


> I'm going to contact SBA then, I have a DIY sealed 8ft^3 net with 2 15" RL-p's wired for 4 Ω total load driven by Adire's ADA 1200 watt plate amp. I'd think I qualifiy as being excluded from the "And of course, we don't recommend people buy an $800 bass-correction solution to use with mediocre subs either. If you have a sub that's not powerful enough or deep enough for your needs, it makes sense to upgrade there first naturally." catagory. I'm hoping there isn't a pre-requisite to own a SVS subwoofer first.
> 
> Also, your release states limited production - is that for the initial run, or is it going to be a limited availability item for it's full marketing life?


Naturally your sub qualifies as being worthy of the AS-EQ1. :yes: All we meant by that statement is if you are running a HTIB subwoofer from a local brick/mortar outlet center, then maybe your $700 is best spent elsewhere first (like on new subwoofer). You know how the old saying goes, "you can't get blood from a turnip".

The limited quantities refers to the first production run. It's hard to gauge the demand for a product like this; while it does have competition, it's also unique in several respects. We'll order more for the next production run if they go quickly, and pre-order sales have indeed been brisk, and are on pace to chew-up this first product run in fairly short order.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Ed Mullen said:


> You know how the old saying goes, "you can't get blood from a turnip".


Or bass from a HTIB "subwoofer"... "laugh:

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## pietsch288

Does any body know if you can tweek the thing (house curve or change xover ect). I have the sms-1 now and its pretty handy to be able to change the xover point as well as the slope as steep as I wan't. Does it have a volume control?? 
I have 4 cs ultra's and I love the idea (running them in pairs off of a ep2500) of dual subwoofer control!!! No more time delay-phase issues:T:yay::bigsmile::jump::R:meal:


----------



## jmalto

This is a very exciting product, I was looking at the anti-mode but I think this may be an ideal product because of the 32 location measurements.

I was curious, for those with more then two subwoofers would it be possible to split the channels off the AS-EQ1 with an adapter to accommodate 3 subs or maybe even 4? I currently have 3 with an iffy room response and do not want to give up using one.

Thanks for the info!

-Jonathan


----------



## pietsch288

Any kind of satisfaction guarantee????


----------



## Ed Mullen

pietsch288 said:


> Does any body know if you can tweek the thing (house curve or change xover ect). I have the sms-1 now and its pretty handy to be able to change the xover point as well as the slope as steep as I wan't. Does it have a volume control??
> I have 4 cs ultra's and I love the idea (running them in pairs off of a ep2500) of dual subwoofer control!!! No more time delay-phase issues:T:yay::bigsmile::jump::R:meal:


The AS-EQ1 is not a bass managment tool - it does not have a low pass filter or a level control (although it does have speaker/sub level-matching capability). It gives your subwoofer(s) the flattest possible FR (which is not adjustable) for a given location and listening position.


----------



## Ed Mullen

jmalto said:


> This is a very exciting product, I was looking at the anti-mode but I think this may be an ideal product because of the 32 location measurements.
> 
> I was curious, for those with more then two subwoofers would it be possible to split the channels off the AS-EQ1 with an adapter to accommodate 3 subs or maybe even 4? I currently have 3 with an iffy room response and do not want to give up using one.
> 
> Thanks for the info!
> 
> -Jonathan


The AS-EQ1 has dual subwoofer feeds and it can be programmed for either dual mono or dual discrete. You can certainly operate more than one subwoofer off each channel by using a Y splitter. So 4 subs (2 discrete channels using a splitter at each channel) are not a problem.


----------



## Ed Mullen

pietsch288 said:


> Any kind of satisfaction guarantee????


We offer a 45-day in-home trial, just like for all SVS products. All you risk is forward/return shipping.


----------



## CharlieU

Ed Mullen said:


> The AS-EQ1 is not a bass managment tool - it does not have a low pass filter or a level control (*although it does have speaker/sub level-matching capability*). It gives your subwoofer(s) the flattest possible FR (which is not adjustable) for a given location and listening position.


Ed,

Could you tell us more about the speaker matching feature? I saw the Center/Left jack and figured that was what it was for. I have a Pioneer with MCACC and concluded that the "pings" the EQ1 gives back to the receivers room correction system would only work with receivers equipped with Audyssey. I am hoping that I can get my speakers dialed in with Advanced MCACC and then blend in the subs with the EQ1.


----------



## Ed Mullen

CharlieU said:


> Ed,
> 
> Could you tell us more about the speaker matching feature? I saw the Center/Left jack and figured that was what it was for. I have a Pioneer with MCACC and concluded that the "pings" the EQ1 gives back to the receivers room correction system would only work with receivers equipped with Audyssey. I am hoping that I can get my speakers dialed in with Advanced MCACC and then blend in the subs with the EQ1.



The AS-EQ1 will work fine with your MCACC system. When the Pio pings the subwoofer, the AS-EQ1 will route that signal back to the Pio mic input jack. So the Pio sees a perfect subwoofer signal and won't build a correction file. 

After you run MCACC, level match the subwoofer to one of your front stage speakers using the level matching feature. This sends a broad band pink noise signal to the speaker (select an analog input on the Pio) and a rumble tone to the subwoofer. Adjust the gain on the subwoofer until it matches the speaker and then run the AS-EQ1 routine. 

You can skip the level matching step if you have already set the subwoofer level to match the mains via other means (like manual test tones and an SPL meter). But don't allow the MCACC to set the subwoofer level because it will also build a correction file at the same time.


----------



## NCDave

Ed Mullen said:


> The AS-EQ1 is not a bass managment tool - it does not have a low pass filter or a level control (although it does have speaker/sub level-matching capability). It gives your subwoofer(s) the flattest possible FR (which is not adjustable) for a given location and listening position.


Just to clarify, then: there is no way to enter a "house curve"?

I am continually amazed at what people think is "affordable." Maybe there are AS-EQ1 giveaways in the new Big Bill. :newspaper:

Looks very nice, though.


----------



## Ed Mullen

NCDave said:


> Just to clarify, then: there is no way to enter a "house curve"?
> 
> I am continually amazed at what people think is "affordable." Maybe there are AS-EQ1 giveaways in the new Big Bill. :newspaper:
> 
> Looks very nice, though.


Correct - no user adjustment of the corrected FR. If you want that capability, you are better off with a different product, or cascading a shelving filter over the corrected AS-EQ1 response.


----------



## CharlieU

Thanks for the information Ed. This looks like it will be a very sophisticated device and has the features to separate itself from the "pack". I look forward to putting away the RS Meter and Rives CD and spending the the time doing something less frustrating, like play golf.:whistling:


----------



## robbroy

Yer right I'm in line for one of these, recession or no! They say you gotta' watch your money, but I say you also have to listen to it! At the last home theater get together I had Ron brought one of only two working prototypes to run with my dual PB13-Ultras. Sounded amazing! Then the rat (JK) took it home with him! I've missed it ever since... If it has the same excellent fit and finish as the rest of their products (remember, I only saw the prototype) it will also look good in the rack.

-Robb


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Ed Mullen said:


> Correct - no user adjustment of the corrected FR. If you want that capability, you are better off with a different product, or cascading a shelving filter over the corrected AS-EQ1 response.


Or using the AS-EQ1 with a processor that supports AudysseyPro v3?


----------



## Ed Mullen

Kal Rubinson said:


> Or using the AS-EQ1 with a processor that supports AudysseyPro v3?



Sure - any upstream device can cascade over the AS-EQ1, just like the low pass filter applied by the surround sound processor.


----------



## Sub-Bub

*House Curve Technique with AS-EQ1*



Ed Mullen said:


> Sure - any upstream device can cascade over the AS-EQ1, just like the low pass filter applied by the surround sound processor.


Ed - since I have a BFD as my current EQ device, why couldn't I run the AS-EQ1 to flatten the room, then use the BFD to create an inverse house curve (mirror image of desired HC state), then run the AS-EQ1 to flatten the room again. I would think I could then remove the BFD just using the AS-EQ1 and find I have a house curve.

Would this work?

Thanks,

Bub


----------



## jagman

That's a pretty cool idea. I never thought of it but it seems like it might work. Very interesting.


----------



## JimP

If you're going to do that, then why go to the expense of getting the AS-EQ 1? Just use the BFG


----------



## jagman

Just out of curiosity, aside from being able to independently control two subwoofers, what is the benefit of this device over using the regular MultEQ XT embedded in a receiver or Pre/Pro? I ask because although not ubiquitous, MultEQ XT is pretty common. Does it perform better because it has a stand alone power supply and the processor is devoted solely to the Audyssey software? Since it likely has the hardware to support house curves (like AudysseyPro V3.0), I'm a little surprised you chose not to include that feature set since most subwoofer enthusiasts (at least on the online forums) like to use a house curve.


----------



## jagman

JimP said:


> If you're going to do that, then why go to the expense of getting the AS-EQ 1? Just use the BFG


Probably because it is easier to control dual subs independently plus the sweet spot is considerably larger.


----------



## Roadkill

Some of us use balanced interconnect cables. Will you be adding balanced in/outs at a later date?


----------



## Sub-Bub

jagman said:


> That's a pretty cool idea. I never thought of it but it seems like it might work. Very interesting.


Thanks - I didn't see why not. Thought I'd ask Ed and see if there was any reason why not as well.




JimP said:


> If you're going to do that, then why go to the expense of getting the AS-EQ 1? Just use the BFG


At one time, before I got into EQing dual subs, I had hair. I have no hair now :no:. Even though REW took some of the tedium out of it, I'm betting the AS-EQ1 can get way closer to flat than I can or even want to try any more when the room changes and I have to do it again. I think SVS invented this device for me as their (almost) demographic.

However, since I rarely listen at reference and I've experimented with and without a HC in my room at lower levels, I'd think I'd find the low end a bit down for my taste. I know I could also leave the BFD in between the AS-EQ1 and the subs and boost to get the HC and then put the BFD into bypass if I didn't want the HC applied. I also thought I could fool the AS-EQ1 into supplying the HC using cuts on the AS-EQ1 correction if I wanted to take the BFD out of the loop for whatever reason, which is why I was thinking I could fool it with an inverse HC. I'll try it and let you know but thought I'd ask Mr. Mullen if he had any thoughts.

In any case, as Will Smith said in Independence Day, "I gotta get me one of these!".

Bub


----------



## bac4822

Ed, will the AS-EQ1 display the before and after bass frequency responses, either on the device itself or when attached to a PC?


----------



## TheGovernment

this devise sound pretty sweet! I'm not liking the no balanced input/out puts though, that's not good.


----------



## Ed Mullen

*Re: House Curve Technique with AS-EQ1*



Sub-Bub said:


> Ed - since I have a BFD as my current EQ device, why couldn't I run the AS-EQ1 to flatten the room, then use the BFD to create an inverse house curve (mirror image of desired HC state), then run the AS-EQ1 to flatten the room again. I would think I could then remove the BFD just using the AS-EQ1 and find I have a house curve.
> 
> Would this work?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bub


It might work in theory, but the AS-EQ1 does have an overall boost limit for two reasons - 1) it needs to avoid digital clipping/headroom issues, and 2) it also has a sophisticated roll-off sensing algorithm and it might view an aggressive inverse house curve as an inherent inability of the subwoofer to maintain a flat extension to its corner frequency. In other words, it may not indiscriminately apply boost to completely overcome an inverse house curve.


----------



## Ed Mullen

jagman said:


> Just out of curiosity, aside from being able to independently control two subwoofers, what is the benefit of this device over using the regular MultEQ XT embedded in a receiver or Pre/Pro? I ask because although not ubiquitous, MultEQ XT is pretty common. Does it perform better because it has a stand alone power supply and the processor is devoted solely to the Audyssey software? Since it likely has the hardware to support house curves (like AudysseyPro V3.0), I'm a little surprised you chose not to include that feature set since most subwoofer enthusiasts (at least on the online forums) like to use a house curve.


The AS-EQ1 has more processing power and filter resolution than the consumer version of Audy MultEQ XT. It can also measure in more locations (up to 32) if you have a large room and listening area. 

The problem with a "house curve" is that it's a static solution which only works at one playback volume. It may be inadequate at lower volumes, and it may be overly intrusive at higher playback volumes. Hence the introduction of Audy Dynamic EQ, which applies a continuously varying bass "house curve" (i..e, compensation for our relative insenstivity to deep bass) as a function of playback volume. This is a far more elegant solution that the static/fixed house curve applied uniformly at all playback volumes. 

So if you value the concept of a house curve, and you want to take it to the next level (including the speaker channels, and not just the subwoofer), then get a processor which features Audy Dynamic EQ.


----------



## Ed Mullen

bac4822 said:


> Ed, will the AS-EQ1 display the before and after bass frequency responses, either on the device itself or when attached to a PC?


Yes, on the PC screen and as an HTML file saved in the Audy program file folder. You can even share this document with others by saving it as a PDF with CutePDF (freeware). 

You can check as many combinations of subwoofer location/listening positions as you want, and when you find the best result, then you can permanently save that correction file to the AS-EQ1 and disconnect the PC.


----------



## Sub-Bub

Ed Mullen said:


> The AS-EQ1 has more processing power and filter resolution than the consumer version of Audy MultEQ XT. It can also measure in more locations (up to 32) if you have a large room and listening area.
> 
> The problem with a "house curve" is that it's a static solution which only works at one playback volume. It may be inadequate at lower volumes, and it may be overly intrusive at higher playback volumes. Hence the introduction of Audy Dynamic EQ, which applies a continuously varying bass "house curve" (i..e, compensation for our relative insenstivity to deep bass) as a function of playback volume. This is a far more elegant solution that the static/fixed house curve applied uniformly at all playback volumes.
> 
> So if you value the concept of a house curve, and you want to take it to the next level (including the speaker channels, and not just the subwoofer), then get a processor which features Audy Dynamic EQ.


Ed - is the AS-EQ1 capable of Dynamic EQ and if so, any thoughts on enabling it down the road or for a small fee?

Bub


----------



## Ed Mullen

Sub-Bub said:


> Ed - is the AS-EQ1 capable of Dynamic EQ and if so, any thoughts on enabling it down the road or for a small fee?
> 
> Bub


No, we never envisioned applying DEQ to just the AS-EQ1 because this Audyssey feature affects all speaker channels (not just the subwoofer). If you have not experienced the effect of DEQ, it is quite startling, and the variable house curve it applies to the subwoofer is just a fraction of the overall experience/effect.


----------



## Roadkill

Ed,

At the risk of being perceived a pest, I will ask my question again. Perhaps you overlooked my earlier post.

Will you be adding balanced input/outputs at a later date?

Thanks,


----------



## drdoan

Based on my love of the Audyssey in my Denon, this should be a no brainer. It is on my to do list. You will see some equipment I am selling the sales thread soon! this Audyssey stuff is just amazing! Dennis


----------



## kingair

Does this mean that after purchasing the AS-EQ1 SubEQ, I still need a laptop to get this to work right?


----------



## Sonnie

You will need some kind of computer... a laptop would most likely be preferable.


----------



## oakboy37

Why only windoze??

I run a mac....


----------



## kingair

I have a great deal of respect for SVS. I own A PC13-Ultra and I am interested in EQ. I have been looking at the "Anti-Mode 8033" which sells for less then half of the AS-EQ SubEQ and is fully automatic, and I don't need a computer to use. I have read some pretty good reviews for the Anti-Mode 8033. What makes the SVS unit better?


----------



## drdoan

It is designed by Audyssey. Tomlinson Holman (THX) and his team have built some very sophisticated algorithms into this unit. But, as always, compare. Dennis


----------



## Ed Mullen

Roadkill said:


> Ed,
> 
> At the risk of being perceived a pest, I will ask my question again. Perhaps you overlooked my earlier post.
> 
> Will you be adding balanced input/outputs at a later date?
> 
> Thanks,


The current build version of the AS-EQ1 does not have balanced I/O, nor does the Audyssey version of this device (we are co-releasing it, and the Audy version will only be sold through licensed Audy installers). 

The addition of balanced I/O will require new internal hardware/PCBs, and is not being contemplated at this time. The overwhelming majority of enthusiasts use RCA connections for the subwoofer and the balanced I/O crowd, however vocal, remains a distinct minority. We did ask about balanced I/O when the product was in the very early planning stages and Audy said no because this unit is based off the Audy MultEQ XT Pro architecture, which at the time only offered RCA I/O. 

If this product sells well and we (SVS/Audy) can recoup the significant investment bringing it to market, and the requests for balanced I/O remains high, we'll revisit the subject on V2 (if there is one), but there is certainly nothing like that in the works right now.


----------



## Scott_R_K

Ed Mullen said:


> The AS-EQ1 will work fine with your MCACC system. When the Pio pings the subwoofer, the AS-EQ1 will route that signal back to the Pio mic input jack. So the Pio sees a perfect subwoofer signal and won't build a correction file.
> 
> *By "route the signal" you mean simply via Audio not some connection to the Pio mic input jack?*
> 
> After you run MCACC, level match the subwoofer to one of your front stage speakers using the level matching feature. This sends a broad band pink noise signal to the speaker (select an analog input on the Pio) and a rumble tone to the subwoofer. Adjust the gain on the subwoofer until it matches the speaker and then run the AS-EQ1 routine.
> 
> You can skip the level matching step if you have already set the subwoofer level to match the mains via other means (like manual test tones and an SPL meter). But don't allow the MCACC to set the subwoofer level because it will also build a correction file at the same time.
> *On my Pio , the MCACC System will not EQ the Sub and only as low as the applied crossover . Do you think that SV Sound might be able to Post , on your Web site , Instructions for interfacing the AS-EQ1 with various AVR Systems ? *




Thanks ,

Scott........................


----------



## Roadkill

Ed Mullen said:


> The current build version of the AS-EQ1 does not have balanced I/O, nor does the Audyssey version of this device (we are co-releasing it, and the Audy version will only be sold through licensed Audy installers).
> 
> The addition of balanced I/O will require new internal hardware/PCBs, and is not being contemplated at this time. The overwhelming majority of enthusiasts use RCA connections for the subwoofer and the balanced I/O crowd, however vocal, remains a distinct minority. We did ask about balanced I/O when the product was in the very early planning stages and Audy said no because this unit is based off the Audy MultEQ XT Pro architecture, which at the time only offered RCA I/O.
> 
> If this product sells well and we (SVS/Audy) can recoup the significant investment bringing it to market, and the requests for balanced I/O remains high, we'll revisit the subject on V2 (if there is one), but there is certainly nothing like that in the works right now.


That's disappointing but thank you for the reply.


----------



## brucemck2

Great product. (I admit to some bias: I've owned several SVS subs and have several Audyssey boxes in my home.)

Three questions ...

(1) What is the approximate "latency" of the unit? (How much "distance" will I have to add to my processor to account for your unit being in the processing chain?)

(2) I assume it corrects each of two subs independently (the two sub outs can be set as independent subs, and are not two feeds of a single mono sub or single correction filter.)

(3) My processor only has balanced outs, and my subs only have balanced in. Any reason I couldn't just use balanced to single ended adaptors?

Thanks.


----------



## mcallister

I currently have an Anti Mode 8033. My sub setup is somewhat odd as I have a 7.2 Cubic Ft sealed Maelstrom and a 650 litre Sonotube using a Avalanche 18 colocated with good results. Any reason to move to one of these SVS units besides obviously the on screen goodies?


----------



## Ed Mullen

Scott_R_K said:


> By "route the signal" you mean simply via Audio not some connection to the Pio mic input jack?
> 
> In my Pio , the MCACC System will not EQ the Sub and only as low as the applied crossover . Do you think that SV Sound might be able to Post , on your Web site , Instructions for interfacing the AS-EQ1 with various AVR Systems? Thanks , Scott........................


If you place the AS-EQ1 in external calibration mode, you connect your Pio MCACC mic to the AS-EQ1. It will pass through the mic connection to your AVR mic input. You also connect your subwoofer output jack to the AS-EQ1. 

The mic jacks on the AS-EQ1 will function as a pass through for all MCACC calibration pings, save for the subwoofer. When it pings the subwoofer, the AS-EQ1 will not allow the signal to pass to the subwoofer. Instead it routes the signal back to your Pio mic input. So the Pio will detect a subwoofer, but it will not build a correction file or distance file for it. The AS-EQ1 will do that for you during the EQ routine, and it will give you the correct subwoofer distance to input into your Pio.


----------



## Ed Mullen

brucemck2 said:


> Great product. (I admit to some bias: I've owned several SVS subs and have several Audyssey boxes in my home.)
> 
> Three questions ...
> 
> (1) What is the approximate "latency" of the unit? (How much "distance" will I have to add to my processor to account for your unit being in the processing chain?)
> 
> (2) I assume it corrects each of two subs independently (the two sub outs can be set as independent subs, and are not two feeds of a single mono sub or single correction filter.)
> 
> (3) My processor only has balanced outs, and my subs only have balanced in. Any reason I couldn't just use balanced to single ended adaptors?
> 
> Thanks.


The electrical latency of the AS-EQ1 is ~8.5 ms (previously stated). It will measure the acoustic distance of the subwoofer, and its own latency, and give you the correct distance to input into your AVR. 

The AS-EQ1 can operate in dual discrete sub mode or dual mono sub mode - you pick the correct option during the set-up screen. 

Balanced to RCA adapters will work fine.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

brucemck2 said:


> (3) My processor only has balanced outs, and my subs only have balanced in. Any reason I couldn't just use balanced to single ended adaptors?


Just remember that anytime you insert an unbalanced component into a signal path, the signal path becomes unbalanced.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Scott_R_K

Ed Mullen said:


> If you place the AS-EQ1 in external calibration mode, you connect your Pio MCACC mic to the AS-EQ1. It will pass through the mic connection to your AVR mic input. You also connect your subwoofer output jack to the AS-EQ1.
> 
> The mic jacks on the AS-EQ1 will function as a pass through for all MCACC calibration pings, save for the subwoofer. When it pings the subwoofer, the AS-EQ1 will not allow the signal to pass to the subwoofer. Instead it routes the signal back to your Pio mic input. So the Pio will detect a subwoofer, but it will not build a correction file or distance file for it. The AS-EQ1 will do that for you during the EQ routine, and it will give you the correct subwoofer distance to input into your Pio.


Thanks Ed , Sounds like this is a truly well thought out Product and sounds like you've had experience with the Pio MCACC System . Two big plus's in my books . Hopefully people will post some of their before and after shots with this System .

Scott...................


----------



## jagman

Ed Mullen said:


> The AS-EQ1 has more processing power and filter resolution than the consumer version of Audy MultEQ XT. It can also measure in more locations (up to 32) if you have a large room and listening area.
> 
> The problem with a "house curve" is that it's a static solution which only works at one playback volume. It may be inadequate at lower volumes, and it may be overly intrusive at higher playback volumes. Hence the introduction of Audy Dynamic EQ, which applies a continuously varying bass "house curve" (i..e, compensation for our relative insenstivity to deep bass) as a function of playback volume. This is a far more elegant solution that the static/fixed house curve applied uniformly at all playback volumes.
> 
> So if you value the concept of a house curve, and you want to take it to the next level (including the speaker channels, and not just the subwoofer), then get a processor which features Audy Dynamic EQ.


Interesting... and you make a strong argument! You could work for Audyssey . So you are saying that this product, when added to to a receiver with MultEQ XT and DynamicEQ, could put out phenomenal, theatrical sound at any volume level and any seat in the room, provided the receiver has a good bass management system? I think this product on its own would do wonders for bass, but the combo of it with a receiver as described above would be the total package.


----------



## Sonnie

jagman said:


> Interesting... and you make a strong argument! You could work for Audyssey . So you are saying that this product, when added to to a receiver with MultEQ XT and DynamicEQ, could put out phenomenal, theatrical sound at any volume level and any seat in the room, provided the receiver has a good bass management system? I think this product on its own would do wonders for bass, but the combo of it with a receiver as described above would be the total package.


Sounds like a plan to me... since I have the Onkyo 876 with XT and DEQ... :T



*Ed*... To clarify - in a completely symmetrical dedicated HT room front to back, a pair of subs in the front of the room symmetrically placed... along with a pair of subs in the rear of the room symmetrically placed... would using one channel for front subs and the other channel for rear subs work out well with the EQ1? Thanks!


----------



## JimP

Ed,

I've been thinking about this units capability of corrections in the time domain. I understand that these corrections are independent of phase corrections due to adjustments in the subwoofer distance. My question is are these time corrections the same as eliminating long decay times and is it a seperate process or only a consequence of reduction of peaks in frequency response?


----------



## jmalto

Ed Mullen said:


> The AS-EQ1 has dual subwoofer feeds and it can be programmed for either dual mono or dual discrete. You can certainly operate more than one subwoofer off each channel by using a Y splitter. So 4 subs (2 discrete channels using a splitter at each channel) are not a problem.


Nice, looks like I will be putting an order in for one :clap:


----------



## Ed Mullen

jagman said:


> Interesting... and you make a strong argument! You could work for Audyssey . So you are saying that this product, when added to to a receiver with MultEQ XT and DynamicEQ, could put out phenomenal, theatrical sound at any volume level and any seat in the room, provided the receiver has a good bass management system? I think this product on its own would do wonders for bass, but the combo of it with a receiver as described above would be the total package.


That pretty much sums it up. I have a 3808 CI, and I did the Pro upgrade and it really made me a believer in Audyssey products. The consumer version of MultEQ XT is very good, but the Pro version is just another dimension entirely. That, combined with DEQ (which is automatically enabled on the Pro upgrade) and the AS-EQ1 really has made my system the total package.


----------



## Ed Mullen

Sonnie said:


> Sounds like a plan to me... since I have the Onkyo 876 with XT and DEQ... :T
> 
> 
> 
> *Ed*... To clarify - in a completely symmetrical dedicated HT room front to back, a pair of subs in the front of the room symmetrically placed... along with a pair of subs in the rear of the room symmetrically placed... would using one channel for front subs and the other channel for rear subs work out well with the EQ1? Thanks!


Yes absolutely. In fact our extensive testing indicates one AS-EQ1 running four subwoofers in the manner you described (i.e., two symmetrical sets) is actually better than two AS-EQ1 units each running only two subwoofers. The reason why is the adaptive correction algorithms for multiple seating locations - the more information you feed the AS-EQ1, the better it gets at correcting the entire listening area. So you definitely want one AS-EQ1 to be aware of the presence and sonic fingerprint of all four subs in the room, even if they are technically being treated as dual discrete subs by the AS-EQ1.


----------



## Ed Mullen

JimP said:


> Ed,
> 
> I've been thinking about this units capability of corrections in the time domain. I understand that these corrections are independent of phase corrections due to adjustments in the subwoofer distance. My question is are these time corrections the same as eliminating long decay times and is it a seperate process or only a consequence of reduction of peaks in frequency response?


Any reduction in a room peak will result in a shorter ring time. 

The real time domain advantage of the AS-EQ1 lies in the FIR filter technology, as opposed to the IIR filters found in conventional PEQs. An IIR filter with a high Q value (i.e., a narrow bandwidth) will ring at its center frequency, causing phase distortions in the time domain. 

FIR filters (as used in the AS-EQ1), while requiring far more computational power than IIR filters, do not have a Q value and have a linear phase response because they have only zeros in the z-plane, whereas an IIR filter has both zeros and poles in the z-plane, and will invariably exhibit non-linear phase distortions. 

The difference is real and it's audible - the AS-EQ1 provides coherent and phase-correct bass without the time domain smearing/ringing caused by less capable filter technologies. In fact it's one of the primary reasons many enthusiasts are unhappy with the results obtained with conventional PEQs; a relatively flat response can be forced, but at the expense of significant phase distortions in the time domain. This time smearing is fatiguing and doesn't sound "quite right" - many enthusiasts can't quite put their finger on it to describe what is wrong with the bass quality, but they immediately know it when they hear the difference compared to the AS-EQ1. 

All of my conventional PEQs (and I have four) have been gathering dust in my office since I started work on the SubEQ project 2 years ago. :yes:


----------



## Sonnie

This is one hot product... Kudos to SVSound :T

I can't wait to get mine in and give her a go.


----------



## pietsch288

I might as well give er a try also.....with 45 day trial I cant go wrong!!!! Any kind of return customer discount??????


----------



## aNomad

NCDave said:


> Just to clarify, then: there is no way to enter a "house curve"?
> 
> I am continually amazed at what people think is "affordable." Maybe there are AS-EQ1 giveaways in the new Big Bill. :newspaper:
> 
> Looks very nice, though.


"AS-EQ1 giveaways in the new big bill" LOL


----------



## aNomad

Ed Mullen said:


> If you place the AS-EQ1 in external calibration mode, you connect your Pio MCACC mic to the AS-EQ1. It will pass through the mic connection to your AVR mic input. You also connect your subwoofer output jack to the AS-EQ1.
> 
> The mic jacks on the AS-EQ1 will function as a pass through for all MCACC calibration pings, save for the subwoofer. When it pings the subwoofer, the AS-EQ1 will not allow the signal to pass to the subwoofer. Instead it routes the signal back to your Pio mic input. So the Pio will detect a subwoofer, but it will not build a correction file or distance file for it. The AS-EQ1 will do that for you during the EQ routine, and it will give you the correct subwoofer distance to input into your Pio.


Ed,

I have done many an acoustic correction in my day, and my experience tells me that you can only *delay* signals to match distances, you cant make them come out sooner. There should only be one channel which has no delay (the furthest) unless lip sync is an issue. If the "ping" from the MCACC which is meant for the woofer goes directly to the Pio mic input, it will "think" the response is flat, but it will sense no delay, therefore the Pio will think the woofer is infinitely close. Under that circumstance, I would think the Pioneer would give the woofer a large delay to match the furthest full range channel.

Also, I have heard how the Audy sets the proper eq for every seat. How can it do this with only a few subs? By definition, the sound will be different in different places, unless every seat has a sub.


----------



## Scott_R_K

Ed ,

I've checked the SV Sound Web Site but can't find an option yet to download the Operator's Manual . Is it too early for such a thing ?

Scott................


----------



## Sonnie

Stay tuned right here at the Shack for the giveaway... :bigsmile:

What else would you expect... :dontknow:


----------



## JimP

aNomad said:


> Ed,
> 
> I have done many an acoustic correction in my day, and my experience tells me that you can only *delay* signals to match distances, you cant make them come out sooner. There should only be one channel which has no delay (the furthest) unless lip sync is an issue. If the "ping" from the MCACC which is meant for the woofer goes directly to the Pio mic input, it will "think" the response is flat, but it will sense no delay, therefore the Pio will think the woofer is infinitely close. Under that circumstance, I would think the Pioneer would give the woofer a large delay to match the furthest full range channel.
> 
> Also, I have heard how the Audy sets the proper eq for every seat. How can it do this with only a few subs? By definition, the sound will be different in different places, unless every seat has a sub.


I believe Ed has already answered that. You might want to go back and reread his post.


----------



## Ed Mullen

pietsch288 said:


> I might as well give er a try also.....with 45 day trial I cant go wrong!!!! Any kind of return customer discount??????


No additional discounts at the pre-order price; our backs are to the wall at $699. After the pre-order phase ends, returning customers will get 5% off MSRP, which is $40 - not bad, but not as nice as $100. :T


----------



## Ed Mullen

aNomad said:


> Ed,
> 
> I have done many an acoustic correction in my day, and my experience tells me that you can only *delay* signals to match distances, you cant make them come out sooner. There should only be one channel which has no delay (the furthest) unless lip sync is an issue. If the "ping" from the MCACC which is meant for the woofer goes directly to the Pio mic input, it will "think" the response is flat, but it will sense no delay, therefore the Pio will think the woofer is infinitely close. Under that circumstance, I would think the Pioneer would give the woofer a large delay to match the furthest full range channel.
> 
> Also, I have heard how the Audy sets the proper eq for every seat. How can it do this with only a few subs? By definition, the sound will be different in different places, unless every seat has a sub.


Right - the key at the External Calibration phase is to prevent the AVR from building an EQ file for the subwoofer. The distance it calculates is not relevant, as that will be manually inputted by the user after the AS-EQ1 measures the acoustic distance + its own latency and provides the correct distance setting. 

The concept of distance settings is indeed confusing to many enthusiasts and you are exactly correct - everything revolves around the speaker channel which physically takes the longest to reach the mic. Everything else (which would otherwise reach the mic sooner) is delayed accordingly so they all arrive at the mic (or listener as it were) at the same time. 

No device can provide the same FR at all listening positions; that is physically impossible. The strength of MultEQ XT is the adaptive algorithms (call it fuzzy logic) which looks at all the data from every mic location and develops a correction curve which will optimize the response at all seats without trashing it at any seat. Yes, this ultimately can be called a compromise, but the Audyssey adaptive algorithms are far better at this daunting task than any other similar device I've tested, much less trying to accomplish it with a PEQ manually, which is an exercise in frustration.


----------



## aNomad

Ok, thanks Ed.

Given the fuzzy logic, does it make sense to measure as many as 32 mic positions? It seems like the more positions analyzed, the more compromise must be made. What is the recommended number of measurement positions?


----------



## JimP

What is the minimum number of seats that should be measured?


----------



## Sonnie

Measure no more than what you absolutely have to. I only measured my main listening position in my last theater because I was about the only one that ever really used it that much. My daughter and her friends wouldn't know any different.


----------



## JimP

Hi Sonnie. How's your new theater coming?

Reason for asking about the minimum number of readings is at least one receiver, Onkyo 806, says to do a minimum of 3. It turned out that you should do a minimum of 6. Didn't know if this device also had a minimum number of readings.

In your situation, I'd take all the required readings from the same spot.


----------



## jpk

Hi,
I'm close to pulling the trigger for one of these. I'm wondering if it's going to do that much more than say the new Sherwood or Outlaw units coming out with Trinnov Optimizer. Thoughts, comments?
Thanks,
Joe


----------



## Sonnie

JimP said:


> Hi Sonnie. How's your new theater coming?
> 
> Reason for asking about the minimum number of readings is at least one receiver, Onkyo 806, says to do a minimum of 3. It turned out that you should do a minimum of 6. Didn't know if this device also had a minimum number of readings.
> 
> In your situation, I'd take all the required readings from the same spot.


Theater is about 1/3 done. We are headed to Pigeon Forge tomorrow thru Monday, so it will get a break and so will I. I fooled with the riser all day today.

Yes... my 805 requires a minimum of 3 measurements, of which I do all three in the same location. I once did one from my left ear, one from my nose and the other from my right ear. :coocoo:

I will probably try all of the seating locations and then just the main position... then compare all the seating positions and see what it looks like.


----------



## JimP

Sonnie,

Don't know if the same problem found on the 806 also applies to the 805, but you might want to try taking 6 measurements and see how that affects the response curve. I probably wouldn't bother moving the mic.

With the 805, were you still using a BFG and REW for subwoofer frequencies?


----------



## Ed Mullen

aNomad said:


> Ok, thanks Ed.
> 
> Given the fuzzy logic, does it make sense to measure as many as 32 mic positions? It seems like the more positions analyzed, the more compromise must be made. What is the recommended number of measurement positions?


What I have settled on is a high/low head position (to account for varying heights and slouch of listeners) in each theater chair, and then I remeasure my own chair at the end of the session to weight/skew the response a bit for the sweet spot. :innocent:

The minimum number of measurements is three (3), but typically you'll end-up running 8-10 locations if you follow the above guidance and you have 3-4 theater seats. 

Some theaters are larger though - say two rows of four seats each, so you can easily get up into the teens for measurements. 

Or you can simply measure in a single location three times and move on if you're the only one who listens in the theater and you simply want to optimize the sweet spot. It does defeat the purpose of the fuzzy logic adaptive algorithms, but the choice/decision is completely yours.


----------



## cinema mad

Chris founder & CTO of Audyssey stated in the Audyssey forum on AVS, Its recommended to not leave the mic in one position rather take one at the main seating position and at least move the mic left and right of your (head) seating position but more mic positions the better...

Here is the Audyssey set up Guide inc recommended mic positions for Audyssey multEQ XT

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

Cheers....


----------



## pietsch288

hey Ed.....does the eq unit "seperatly" eq 2 subs or does it just set phase/polarity of each sub and then eq globely???


----------



## Ed Mullen

pietsch288 said:


> hey Ed.....does the eq unit "seperatly" eq 2 subs or does it just set phase/polarity of each sub and then eq globely???


Your choice - there is a dual combined mode, and a dual discrete mode. I recommend dual combined mode for most installations, as the combined effect of the dual subwoofers interacting is what you ultimately want to EQ.

It does EQ both subwoofers separately, though, even in dual combined mode.


----------



## Sonnie

JimP said:


> Sonnie,
> 
> With the 805, were you still using a BFG and REW for subwoofer frequencies?


Not in the great room, no. Just the 805 for now, but that setup is temporary anyway. The sub I am using in the great room will be moved to the HT room where the AS-EQ1 will assume duties for equalizing it.


----------



## pietsch288

any reviews of this unit anywhere????


----------



## Ed Mullen

pietsch288 said:


> any reviews of this unit anywhere????


The unit is still in production. We'll be getting some production samples air-shipped to SVS before the main shipment arrives by slow-boat, and we'll be getting at least one unit out for an early review.


----------



## robbroy

pietsch288 said:


> any reviews of this unit anywhere????


It's not really a review, but when I had the AS-EQ1 in my room for a day it was much (and I mean MUCH) easier and faster to setup than my Rane or the BFD I had once upon a time, and it did a better job than I did as well. I did not keep the before and after measurements, but they were impressive to say the least.

-Robb


----------



## JimP

I think the big question for a lot of us is if we use REW and either a BFG, SMS-1 or other equilizer and do it well, then how much of a difference would we have when compared to the AS-EQ1. I understand the filters are different which seems like it would be a major plus but I don't really know that for sure. On the other hand, forget house curves and multiple memories which is for some of us is important.


----------



## vdorta

Ed Mullen said:


> The AS-EQ1 has dual subwoofer feeds and it can be programmed for either dual mono or dual discrete.


I guess "dual discrete" means "stereo" in layman's terminology?


----------



## aNomad

JimP said:


> On the other hand, forget house curves and multiple memories which is for some of us is important.


Just curious, how do you create the house curve now, and what is it?


----------



## Ed Mullen

vdorta said:


> I guess "dual discrete" means "stereo" in layman's terminology?


Usually, yes. Although it could also be used for two separate systems/subs in the same room - maybe a 2 channel and a HT system.


----------



## Sonnie

aNomad said:


> Just curious, how do you create the house curve now, and what is it?


House Curve: What it is, why you need it, how to do it.


----------



## pietsch288

I was just curious about the reviews (I ordered my unit last week). I've used the bfd and I am currently using the sms-1 with REW. I was just trying to learn as much as I can before I receive my unit. I have spent many many hours moving and tweaking my 4 ultra's so I'm hoping the AS-EQ1 turns out to be the holy grail of sub eq's. And like I said..... can't lose with 45 day satisfaction guarantee. thanks SVS


----------



## Sonnie

I finally got my order placed today... :jump:


----------



## MartinTong

I have one M&K MX350 and one PC-Ultra, can use AS-EQ1 connect together ?


----------



## Ed Mullen

MartinTong said:


> I have one M&K MX350 and one PC-Ultra, can use AS-EQ1 connect together ?


Sure, it will easily handle both subwoofers.


----------



## TheLion

Hi Ed.

Interesting product you have there (balanced XLR would have been very nice though ;-) )

I have an Onkyo 886 Pre-Pro with Audyssey XT. One thing I don't like about this consumer version is the rather "simple" mic that actually does the measurements. I take it the mic delivered with your unit is of much better quality. Is it possible and recommended to use the "EQ1 mic" for standard Audy XT calibration (read: speaker calibration) as well?? (therefor potentially improving those results as well)

Is the mic on par with the one that comes with the Audy Pro kit?

Thank you. Looking forward to it.


----------



## Ed Mullen

TheLion said:


> Hi Ed.
> 
> Interesting product you have there (balanced XLR would have been very nice though ;-) )
> 
> I have an Onkyo 886 Pre-Pro with Audyssey XT. One thing I don't like about this consumer version is the rather "simple" mic that actually does the measurements. I take it the mic delivered with your unit is of much better quality. Is it possible and recommended to use the "EQ1 mic" for standard Audy XT calibration (read: speaker calibration) as well?? (therefor potentially improving those results as well)
> 
> Is the mic on par with the one that comes with the Audy Pro kit?
> 
> Thank you. Looking forward to it.


It's best to use the Onkyo mic for calibrating your speakers, since your AVR may have a specific mic cal file for that unit. 

The AS-EQ1 mic looks like any other Audyssey consumer based mic, although the grade of the mic is better and there is a specific cal file for it loaded into the AS-EQ1. 

Provided a mic behaves consistently, and there is an accurate cal file, it will provide good calibration/correction results. Inexpensive doesn't necessary translate into poor performance; consistency behavior and accurate correction files are really what matters and we spent a lot of time on that aspect of the project and went through a few mics in the development process before settling on this unit. It's a very good mic and I intended to use it on my own AS-EQ1, despite the fact I own a Pro installer kit and could use that mic instead. It's the high frequencies where the Pro mic really pulls away from the consumer version anyway.

The Audyssey Pro mic is quite expensive and is definitely a high grade unit, and each one also comes with its own unique cal file. The consumer version of the AS-EQ1 will not use the Pro style mic (the cost is simply too high), but it could be used with the AS-EQ1 with the mic adapter and pre-amp. The Audyssey version of this unit intended to be used by Audyssey-licensed installers will accept the Pro mic directly.


----------



## Ed Mullen

The Operator's Manual is now up at the SVS website: 

http://www.svsound.com/manuals/aseq_1_operatormanual_rev1_1_lowres.pdf

Also, an update on using the Pro mic. Even though the mini-XLR-1/8" and 1/8" to RCA adapters are readily available, Audyssey says their use will compromise the signal integrity of the Pro mic.

If you have an AVR equipped with Audyssey Pro, and want to use the AS-EQ1, it can be done - you would just run the AS-EQ1 first, and then re-run Pro. Since Pro sees a near perfect subwoofer FR already, it won't change it. Or you can use the Audyssey version of the AS-EQ1, which can accept the Pro mic directly.


----------



## CharlieU

I think there should be a note in the Level Matching section for people running systems with automatic room correction to just use the Master Volume control to set the 75db level for the Left/Center. Using the auto setup on a receiver/processor already matches the levels of your mains, center, surrounds and backs. Playing with the individual trims is going to throw that off. Most people will run the auto setup to get their distances and levels set even if they don't use the room correction. Come to think of it, even when I had systems without auto setup, I always set distances and levels as part of my setup of the receiver.


----------



## Ed Mullen

CharlieU said:


> I think there should be a note in the Level Matching section for people running systems with automatic room correction to just use the Master Volume control to set the 75db level for the Left/Center. Using the auto setup on a receiver/processor already matches the levels of your mains, center, surrounds and backs. Playing with the individual trims is going to throw that off. Most people will run the auto setup to get their distances and levels set even if they don't use the room correction. Come to think of it, even when I had systems without auto setup, I always set distances and levels as part of my setup of the receiver.


If your AVR runs auto-set-up, then it will reference 75 dB (or very close to it) for all the speaker channels. There is usually some deviation - you might see 74-76 dB on an SPL meter. 

The issue to keep in mind is that the AVR mic and the AS-EQ1 mic will likely have somewhat different absolute SPL readings - meaning for a given test tone one will read slightly different that the other. We're not worried about absolute SPL so much as we are concerned with level matching the speakers and subwoofer before the AS-EQ1 is run.

So if you change the connected Sat speaker by a given amount to achieve 75 dB, then adjust all the other speaker channels by the same offset - that will preserve the differential between speaker channels that your AVR may have set during auto-EQ. 

Let's consider the following example:

After auto-EQ, here are your AVR trim settings:

FL: -2
C: 0
FR: -2.5
SR: +3
RSR+ +5
RSL: + 5.5
SL: +3.5

You connect the AS-EQ1 to the center channel multi-channel input and it reads 77 dB, meaning you would need to bump it down 2 dB to get 75 dB. If you want to preserve the existing ratio between all your speaker channels and not bother measuring the rest of them, just bump them ALL down 2 dB and then set the subwoofer to 75 dB.

Again, the key is to make sure the speakers and subwoofer are level matched as read by the same microphone before running the EQ step for the subwoofer. Because the trim level setting the AS-EQ1 generates is absolute, not relative - you actually input that value into your AVR.

The only other alternative is to set the subwoofer to 75 dB, run the EQ step, and then run your auto-set-up in your AVR and hope the subwoofer trim level falls within the control range of your AVR (it should in most cases). This is certainly an easier route, but it's not as optimal as the "long way" because it gives the AVR an opportunity to create an EQ correction file which it will then apply over the AS-EQ1. In most cases the AVR won't do anything untoward to the subwoofer, because it already sees a very nice FR from the AS-EQ1. But we can't control what the AVR will do to the subwoofer channel in every set-up and with every AVR model, so it's safer to do it the long way as described in the manual.


----------



## CharlieU

Ed Mullen said:


> You connect the AS-EQ1 to the center channel multi-channel input and it reads 77 dB, meaning you would need to bump it down 2 dB to get 75 dB. If you want to preserve the existing ratio between all your speaker channels and not bother measuring the rest of them, just bump them ALL down 2 dB and then set the subwoofer to 75 dB.


We're on the same horse, just facing different directions.  You run auto setup, your speaker ratios are now set. You hook up the AS-EQ1 to the center channel and the AS-EQ1 microphone and use the Master Volume control to adjust to the 75dB level. Since using the Master Volume control doesn't change the ratios, there is no need to go back in and adjust the trims for the other channels. Of course to complete the task, use the Gain knob located on the subwoofer(s) to get them to the same 75dB.

The above is based on my belief that the auto setup done by Pioneer, Denon, Yamaha, et al will result in equal sound levels from all my speakers at my listening position. Machines can't lie, can they?

The method described in the manual is good for people without auto setup or that don't run auto setup. Plus, who wants to dig out a manual to figure out what volume setting is reference? (Ok, everybody other than me.)


----------



## Ed Mullen

CharlieU said:


> We're on the same horse, just facing different directions.  You run auto setup, your speaker ratios are now set. You hook up the AS-EQ1 to the center channel and the AS-EQ1 microphone and use the Master Volume control to adjust to the 75dB level. Since using the Master Volume control doesn't change the ratios, there is no need to go back in and adjust the trims for the other channels. Of course to complete the task, use the Gain knob located on the subwoofer(s) to get them to the same 75dB.
> 
> The above is based on my belief that the auto setup done by Pioneer, Denon, Yamaha, et al will result in equal sound levels from all my speakers at my listening position. Machines can't lie, can they?
> 
> The method described in the manual is good for people without auto setup or that don't run auto setup. Plus, who wants to dig out a manual to figure out what volume setting is reference? (Ok, everybody other than me.)


Here's the rub with your method:

1) You run auto set-up and the AVR sets all your trim levels.
2) Then you connect the AS-EQ1 and run the Sat test tone and adjust the Master Volume until the Sat reads 75 dB. 
3) Let's say (for the sake of argument) that you need to set the master volume to +4 in order to obtain 75 dB from the center channel. 
4) Then you run the subwoofer tone and adjust the subwoofer gain so it reads 75 dB. 
5) Then you run the sub EQ step, and input the subwoofer trim level into your AVR.

The subwoofer calibration level will now be incorrect by exactly 4 dB.

The voltage being sent to the speakers and the subwoofer has a fixed ratio at any Master Volume setting. That ratio can only be altered through the use of the trim controls. Altering the Master Volume setting such that the voltage to the speaker input changes inherently unbalances the level matching step because the voltage from the AS-EQ1 test tones is the same as the voltage the Master Volume sends to the speaker/sub channels at 0.0, unless you change the trim levels. 

The best way to think of it is that setting the subwoofer to 75 dB by adjusting the gain is identically analogous to setting a speaker channel to 75 dB by adjusting its trim level. 

Bottom line is you have two options in order to obtain the correct subwoofer calibration level:

1) Follow the AS-EQ1 Operator's Manual method. 
2) Run SubEQ first, and then run auto-set-up afterward and hope the AVR a) doesn't run out of sub trim level adjustment, and b) doesn't negatively affect the subwoofer FR by overlaying its own EQ file on top of the SubEQ file. 

If you are willing to run those two risks, by all means select option 2, because it's easier and faster. As the OEM, we don't have the luxury of advising option 2 in the OM because of the risks involved. Option 1 is more work, but it results in a correct subwoofer channel trim setting and an optimal subwoofer EQ file. 

Regardless, your proposed method above will not work, and will result in the subwoofer calibration level being incorrect by exactly the amount of Master Volume offset (from 0.0) required to obtain 75 dB at the Sat channel. That may be a negative or positive MV adjustment, it may be a large or small offset - but it will be an offset nonetheless and the AS-EQ1 will not realize this.


----------



## DougMac

Ed,
I noticed in the instruction manual there's a way to print the before and after results. I hope you'll be encouraging your customers to send the results to you. I'd love to see the results folks achieve in the real world. I'm sure it will be a great marketing tool as well.

Doug


----------



## Ed Mullen

DougMac said:


> Ed,
> I noticed in the instruction manual there's a way to print the before and after results. I hope you'll be encouraging your customers to send the results to you. I'd love to see the results folks achieve in the real world. I'm sure it will be a great marketing tool as well.
> 
> Doug



Thanks Doug - I hope all users post their results at the various forums. It would indeed be cool to see the various set-ups and how the AS-EQ1 handled them. 

We improved the FR chart size and vertical/horizontal scale resolution (compared to the Pro version) specifically for this reason - so customers can see in detail the FR results and share same with others without needing a magnifying glass to look a thumbnail FR chart like Pro provides.


----------



## CharlieU

Ed Mullen said:


> Here's the rub with your method:
> 
> 1) You run auto set-up and the AVR sets all your trim levels.
> 2) Then you connect the AS-EQ1 and run the Sat test tone and adjust the Master Volume until the Sat reads 75 dB.
> 3) Let's say (for the sake of argument) that you need to set the master volume to +4 in order to obtain 75 dB from the center channel.
> 4) Then you run the subwoofer tone and adjust the subwoofer gain so it reads 75 dB.
> 5) Then you run the sub EQ step, and input the subwoofer trim level into your AVR.


Ed,

You got me at step 5. While I knew I had to enter the distance in the AVR, I totally blew by that step. (Probably because it destroyed my theory) Sorry to have been such a pain in the posterior. I should know better than to contradict the experts. Excuse me while I head off to the Brain Surgery and Rocket Science Forums. I have a bunch of posts to delete on those forums. :whistling:


----------



## Sonnie

Hey Charlie... delete mine while you are over there. :sarcastic:



We will definitely start a before and after thread for FR graphs... :T


----------



## Ed Mullen

CharlieU said:


> Ed,
> 
> You got me at step 5. While I knew I had to enter the distance in the AVR, I totally blew by that step. (Probably because it destroyed my theory) Sorry to have been such a pain in the posterior. I should know better than to contradict the experts. Excuse me while I head off to the Brain Surgery and Rocket Science Forums. I have a bunch of posts to delete on those forums. :whistling:


Don't feel bad, Charlie - we initially had the same exact line of thinking when setting up the AS-EQ1 with our own auto-EQ AVRs. :yes:

The level matching routine with the AS-EQ1 is really no different than how you would manually calibrate an AVR - you're just using the AS-EQ1 for the test tone generator instead of the internal AVR tones. So you set the master volume to 0.0, and then only adjust the speaker trim levels. Since the subwoofer is not connected to the master volume of the AVR during the level matching routine, altering the master volume to obtain the desired SPL (instead of using the trim controls) will essentially trick the AS-EQ1 into providing you with a bogus trim level for the subwoofer channel. 

The level matching step is probably the most awkward step of using the AS-EQ1, but we ultimately discovered it was necessary in order to obtain the correct subwoofer trim level.


----------



## robbroy

CharlieU said:


> Ed,
> 
> You got me at step 5. While I knew I had to enter the distance in the AVR, I totally blew by that step. (Probably because it destroyed my theory) Sorry to have been such a pain in the posterior. I should know better than to contradict the experts. Excuse me while I head off to the Brain Surgery and Rocket Science Forums. I have a bunch of posts to delete on those forums. :whistling:


You could put that post under the definition of Class. :T

-Robb


----------



## htnut12

Mine has been on preorder from the beginning. I have downloaded the manual, read this thread, and understand the level matching. I do have one question. If I were to set my volume to 0.0 on my Pio 94, and input anything with the least bit of bass, my house would structurally fail. I have a four IXL-18 IB that outputs prodigious amounts of bass energy. That sub is now matched to Klipsch speakers which are very efficient. I hope that if I do set the receiver to 0.0, that the AS-EQ1 outputs a very small signal to the attached speaker and sub. No problem really with the speaker, but if I cause damage to the house, no amount of explaining to the lovely wife will suffice.


----------



## JimP

htnut12

I have a friend who has refined giving that dumb/stupid/look into an artform. Gotten him out of a lot of jams with his wife.

Might want to give it a try.


----------



## Ed Mullen

htnut12 said:


> Mine has been on preorder from the beginning. I have downloaded the manual, read this thread, and understand the level matching. I do have one question. If I were to set my volume to 0.0 on my Pio 94, and input anything with the least bit of bass, my house would structurally fail. I have a four IXL-18 IB that outputs prodigious amounts of bass energy. That sub is now matched to Klipsch speakers which are very efficient. I hope that if I do set the receiver to 0.0, that the AS-EQ1 outputs a very small signal to the attached speaker and sub. No problem really with the speaker, but if I cause damage to the house, no amount of explaining to the lovely wife will suffice.


The test tone voltage from the AS-EQ1 is the same as any Dolby Reference AVR at 0.0 master volume - in other words -30 dBFS. Don't worry about it, and you can of course start low and work-up to 0.0 but they are designed to allow you to achieve 75 dB.


----------



## htnut12

Ed Mullen said:


> The test tone voltage from the AS-EQ1 is the same as any Dolby Reference AVR at 0.0 master volume - in other words -30 dBFS. Don't worry about it, and you can of course start low and work-up to 0.0 but they are designed to allow you to achieve 75 dB.


Thanks, I will most likely turn the receiver and amp way down, then creep up on the 0.0 to determine what to set in the MCACC profile, then creep up on 75 for the sub.


----------



## Ed Mullen

If the subwoofer amps have individuals gain controls, make sure they are set the same for each channel. If you calibrate each subwoofer to 75 dB, they will acoustically couple anywhere from 3-6 dB, depending on their location relative to each other (if they are colocated, they will give you +6 dB). 

So the recommended subwoofer trim level after you run the SubEQ step will fall between -3 and -6 to compensate for the coupling. 

Make sure to set all your other speaker channels to 75 dB also, so your subwoofer trim level is correct.


----------



## Gamelover360

Ed Mullen said:


> That pretty much sums it up. I have a 3808 CI, and I did the Pro upgrade and it really made me a believer in Audyssey products. The consumer version of MultEQ XT is very good, but the Pro version is just another dimension entirely. That, combined with DEQ (which is automatically enabled on the Pro upgrade) and the AS-EQ1 really has made my system the total package.


Just to be clear, because I have searched and I am not entirely sure about the answer to this question:

If you use 2 subwoofers located up with each of your mains, what benefit would the as-eq1 provide over Audyssey MultEQ XT......IF you only care about 2-3 listening positions (the seats on a couch)? I have heard that Audyssey will do a good job of EQ'ing the combined response of dual subs by seeing them as one. Isn't that the point anyway is to EQ the total subwoofer reponse at your listening position anyway? Thanks.


----------



## Ed Mullen

Gamelover360 said:


> Just to be clear, because I have searched and I am not entirely sure about the answer to this question:
> 
> If you use 2 subwoofers located up with each of your mains, what benefit would the as-eq1 provide over Audyssey MultEQ XT......IF you only care about 2-3 listening positions (the seats on a couch)? I have heard that Audyssey will do a good job of EQ'ing the combined response of dual subs by seeing them as one. Isn't that the point anyway is to EQ the total subwoofer reponse at your listening position anyway? Thanks.


The least advantage for the AS-EQ1 over an AVR would be colocated dual subs (which the consumer version of MultEQ XT will simply view as a single subwoofer). In that scenario, the advantage of the AS-EQ1 would strictly be limited to its superior filter resolution and processing power to provide a more optimal EQ file than the AVR can generate. 

If you split the subs up on either side of the front stage, the AS-EQ1 (even in dual combined mode) will look at the distance and FR of each subwoofer independently, and then will also look at the combined response and build the EQ file accordingly. If one subwoofer is showing an anomaly the other isn't, it will be corrected earlier in the signal chain, instead of applying a blanket correction to both subwoofer. So you'll get this additional benefit over the first scenario above (with colocated subs).

If you have independently verified that MultEQ XT has done a fine job with your corrected FR and you are satified with the sound quality, then by all means stand pat - we never recommend buying gear when there is no obvious improvement to be had. But enough enthusists have found their AVR solutions to be either sorely lacking or (in some cases) practically non-existent, and for them the AS-EQ1 is a great addition to their arsenal in the quest for great bass.


----------



## Gamelover360

Ed Mullen said:


> The least advantage for the AS-EQ1 over an AVR would be colocated dual subs (which the consumer version of MultEQ XT will simply view as a single subwoofer). In that scenario, the advantage of the AS-EQ1 would strictly be limited to its superior filter resolution and processing power to provide a more optimal EQ file than the AVR can generate.
> 
> If you split the subs up on either side of the front stage, the AS-EQ1 (even in dual combined mode) will look at the distance and FR of each subwoofer independently, and then will also look at the combined response and build the EQ file accordingly. If one subwoofer is showing an anomaly the other isn't, it will be corrected earlier in the signal chain, instead of applying a blanket correction to both subwoofer. So you'll get this additional benefit over the first scenario above (with colocated subs).
> 
> If you have independently verified that MultEQ XT has done a fine job with your corrected FR and you are satified with the sound quality, then by all means stand pat - we never recommend buying gear when there is no obvious improvement to be had. But enough enthusists have found their AVR solutions to be either sorely lacking or (in some cases) practically non-existent, and for them the AS-EQ1 is a great addition to their arsenal in the quest for great bass.


Thank you very much Ed.


----------



## pj121391

Are they Shipping this EQ yet?


----------



## CharlieU

pj121391 said:


> Are they Shipping this EQ yet?


I believe the last I heard, it will be the middle of next month.


----------



## BigPines

Ed Mullen said:


> ...and then I remeasure my own chair at the end of the session to weight/skew the response a bit for the sweet spot. :innocent:


That is hilarious because I do the same thing. ...and I thought I was being deviously clever. :devil:

I just figure nobody else in the room will appreciate it as much as I do so my listening position should get twice the weight. Of course, I don't mention this little trick to anybody in the family... :whistling:

Mike


----------



## Ed Mullen

BigPines said:


> That is hilarious because I do the same thing. ...and I thought I was being deviously clever. :devil:
> 
> I just figure nobody else in the room will appreciate it as much as I do so my listening position should get twice the weight. Of course, I don't mention this little trick to anybody in the family... :whistling:
> 
> Mike


Right on, brother. It's good to be the king (of at least one thing anyway). :cunning:


----------



## stevefish69

My EQ1 arrived today (In London :jump

Ed - I wonder if you could help out to see if i've set up my EQ1 correctly

Initial impressions are pretty good. I have no idea how this unit has done it but, but the complete soundstage has improved 10 fold. The fronts and rears seem to have moved out of the room big time, and have an amazing sense of depth that i've never managed to get on my equipment before. The pans, and swings from front to rear are now seemless and i still cannot see how just be EQ'ing and time aligning the Sub this can be done 

I will probably try another set of readings when i have more time, with maybe a few less readings. My only concern is that I've lost a lot of the chest impact that used to be had, but seeing how high my Sub channel was actually set in comparision to my mains was a interesting to say the least. IIRC when th emain channel was producing 75db the Sub channel was pumping out about 90db 

My PCU used to be set to 12 o'clock gain and the Audiolab to +4db on the sub trim. This has now dropped to 9 o'clock and -1.5db trim to give the ruler flat response.

Now if i knock the Sub channel up a notch again and run it hot (although not 15db :grin i'm wondering whether this immense change to the other speakers will dissapear as the mains will be running lower than the Sub. The PCU still dug nice and low when needed, but just in a more lifelike manner than i'm used to.

The one thing thats confusing for me is that when doing the channel level matching it says to set the master volume to 0db and then adjust the individual trim level down until you reach 75db. The Poxy Audiolab AP does not allow you to alter the trim of the left channel. You can only move the other levels up / down to suit. On the Audiolab the master volume on the fixed left input needed to be at -12db to get 75db. I then adjusted the gain on the back of the sub down to 9 o'clock to match the 75db. At the end of the calibration, it aksed me to reduce the sub trim by a further -1.75 on the AP. DOes this mean that reference level on the AP is actually -12db


----------



## Sonnie

That is no fair... :hissyfit: :rant:

However, I suppose congratulations are in order :T


----------



## CharlieU

Steve,

Are you running a 15Hz tune on your PC13-Ultra? From the first graph, it looks like you put some work into getting the sub right before getting the EQ1. In any case, the second graph is beautiful. Thanks for taking the time to post your results.


----------



## stevefish69

CharlieU said:


> Steve,
> 
> Are you running a 15Hz tune on your PC13-Ultra? From the first graph, it looks like you put some work into getting the sub right before getting the EQ1. In any case, the second graph is beautiful. Thanks for taking the time to post your results.



Hi ya,

Yes the Sub is being run in 15hz tune. It's in the front corner of the room and is the third and best position i could find for it using REW.

I will eventually (when i get time to fart) get some REW sweeps done. I'd like to be able to show the following.

Old results with BFD
Sub and mains together with no EQ
Sub and mains together with EQ1 recommended settings and gain set to 9 o'clock
Sub and mains together with EQ1 setup but sub gain back to 12 o'clock gain 

Regards

Steve


----------



## markus76

Hi,

although the AS-EQ1 sounds promising it has a fundamental flaw—to have the subwoofers calibrated, the mains need be part of the calibration procedure. Otherwise the whole frequency range where subs and mains cross over will be uncorrected. I've searched the AS-EQ1 manual but couldn't find any way to make the mains part of the calibration. A simpel level match of mains and subs won't do the trick.

Best, Markus


----------



## Ed Mullen

markus76 said:


> Hi,
> 
> although the AS-EQ1 sounds promising it has a fundamental flaw—to have the subwoofers calibrated, the mains need be part of the calibration procedure. Otherwise the whole frequency range where subs and mains cross over will be uncorrected. I've searched the AS-EQ1 manual but couldn't find any way to make the mains part of the calibration. A simpel level match of mains and subs won't do the trick.
> 
> Best, Markus


I'm not sure I understand your statement, but the product is not "fundamentally flawed". That's a pretty strong statement. I will help you work through any setup issues and answer any questions you may have about the unit.


----------



## markus76

Hello Ed,

in the modal region we won't be able to make assumptions on how mains and subs will cross over. I'd like to direct everybody that is interested in the topic to the scientific work of Todd Welti:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/download.cfm?ID=13680&name=harman

Best, Markus


----------



## Sonnie

Fundamentally flawed... :unbelievable:



















I'd rather believe that someone has fundamentally flawed eyes. :rubeyes:

:blink:


----------



## Ed Mullen

stevefish69 said:


> My EQ1 arrived today (In London :jump
> 
> Ed - I wonder if you could help out to see if i've set up my EQ1 correctly
> 
> Initial impressions are pretty good. I have no idea how this unit has done it but, but the complete soundstage has improved 10 fold. The fronts and rears seem to have moved out of the room big time, and have an amazing sense of depth that i've never managed to get on my equipment before. The pans, and swings from front to rear are now seemless and i still cannot see how just be EQ'ing and time aligning the Sub this can be done
> 
> I will probably try another set of readings when i have more time, with maybe a few less readings. My only concern is that I've lost a lot of the chest impact that used to be had, but seeing how high my Sub channel was actually set in comparision to my mains was a interesting to say the least. IIRC when th emain channel was producing 75db the Sub channel was pumping out about 90db
> 
> My PCU used to be set to 12 o'clock gain and the Audiolab to +4db on the sub trim. This has now dropped to 9 o'clock and -1.5db trim to give the ruler flat response.
> 
> Now if i knock the Sub channel up a notch again and run it hot (although not 15db :grin i'm wondering whether this immense change to the other speakers will dissapear as the mains will be running lower than the Sub. The PCU still dug nice and low when needed, but just in a more lifelike manner than i'm used to.
> 
> The one thing thats confusing for me is that when doing the channel level matching it says to set the master volume to 0db and then adjust the individual trim level down until you reach 75db. The Poxy Audiolab AP does not allow you to alter the trim of the left channel. You can only move the other levels up / down to suit. On the Audiolab the master volume on the fixed left input needed to be at -12db to get 75db. I then adjusted the gain on the back of the sub down to 9 o'clock to match the 75db. At the end of the calibration, it aksed me to reduce the sub trim by a further -1.75 on the AP. DOes this mean that reference level on the AP is actually -12db


Thanks for the positive feedback on the AS-EQ1. The 10-fold improvement in sound stage resulted from 2 things - running the subwoofer calibration level flat/even with the speakers, and 2) the perfectly flat FR you have now achieved.

You lost that chest impact because it trimmed about 5 dB off a 5 dB peak centered at ~35 Hz. The sound is more accurate now (as you noted), but will take an adjustment period. You can run the subwoofer calibration level a little hotter, but eventually (as you fear) the sound stage will collapse and the subwoofer will start to dominate and become localized. A flat/even calibration level with the mains is the best way to keep the subwoofer blending seamless and non-localized. 

The level matching feature is important for the exact reasons you cited - you were running the subwoofer about 15 dB hot. Simply correcting for FR is not enough - it also need to be level-matched with the front stage speakers. 

To answer your question a -12 dB master volume setting does not necessarily mean that is now Dolby Reference Level (although it could be). It was simply the master volume required to get your left channel (which has no trim control) to 75 dB with the voltage input from the AS-EQ1. Then you adjusted all your other speakers and the subwoofer to that reference point. 

The fact that DVDs have mastering/encoding levels which vary considerably makes moot the whole concept of achieving Dolby Reference Level at any given master volume anyway. Play Star Wars I and Star Wars II at the same master volume setting and you'll immediately notice SW II is much louder. Ditto for Sea Biscuit and Underworld (the latter being extremely loud at -13 and the former being comfortable at -5). Throw in DTS tracks which lack dial norm and which are typically mastered 4 dB louder anyway, and you have an 8 dB disparity in bass peaks between Master & Commander cannon blasts on DD vs. DTS at the same master volume setting.

So in the end, don't worry about achieving Dolby Reference Level at any given master volume setting, because the varying encoding levels on DVDs pretty much throws that right out the window. Instead, just set the master volume at a comfortable level for any given DVD and sound format and be happy. :yes:


----------



## markus76

Sonnie,

what do we see in those diagrams? Is it an average of multiple measurements? What smoothing? What window is applied?

Best, Markus

P.S. Please don't quote me wrong. I didn't say that the subwoofer calibration is fundamentally flawed. I said it's a fundamental flaw to NOT make the mains part of the calibration.


----------



## BigPines

markus76 said:


> Hello Ed,
> 
> in the modal region we won't be able to make assumptions on how mains and subs will cross over. I'd like to direct everybody that is interested in the topic to the scientific work of Todd Welti:
> http://www.aes.org/e-lib/download.cfm?ID=13680&name=harman
> 
> Best, Markus


From a sub EQ perspective, we don't need to make any assumptions on what the crossover will be. We just need the FR to be as flat as possible. The AVR has the duty to integrate the subs and the mains not the sub EQ. If the AS-EQ1 calibration is run first (as recommended right?) and then the AVR calibration is run, the AVR has the sole responsibility of integrating the sub and the mains. I don't understand the problem.

Mike


----------



## markus76

Ed,

I have another question: the device uses FIR filters that introduce a delay in the signal path—how big is the latency? Is it fixed or variable?

Best, Markus


----------



## Sonnie

I see exactly what you see. :scratch:

If you want graphs to get more technical beyond where we can really hear a difference, there will be plenty of before and after REW measurements right here at the Shack. 

I am confident SVSound did not release a flawed product knowing it will be tested over and over again by numerous people, only to their own product demise should it not live up to its claims. A little common sense tells us this much.


----------



## BigPines

markus76 said:


> Ed,
> 
> I have another question: the device uses FIR filters that introduce a delay in the signal path—how big is the latency? Is it fixed or variable?
> 
> Best, Markus


Where is all this coming from? Do you have an interest in a competing product by any chance? :dontknow:

Why don't you measure the unit and find out?

Mike


----------



## Ed Mullen

markus76 said:


> Hello Ed,
> 
> in the modal region we won't be able to make assumptions on how mains and subs will cross over. I'd like to direct everybody that is interested in the topic to the scientific work of Todd Welti:
> http://www.aes.org/e-lib/download.cfm?ID=13680&name=harman
> 
> Best, Markus


The only assumption on how the mains and subwoofer will cross over is the application of the high pass filter on the speaker and the low pass filter on the subwoofer at the selected crossover frequency.

The entire sordid affair of applying a 2nd order high pass and a 4th order low pass is firmly rooted in THX, and will only work correctly if the speakers are sealed with a natural 80 Hz acoustic F3 and a 12 dB/octave roll-off profile. Virtually none of the speakers on the market today meet that criteria, most of them being bass reflex with varying F3 levels (both higher and lower than 80 Hz). This results in asymmetrical roll-off slopes and attendent phase and FR distortions. 

So the crossover between the speakers and the subwoofer is almost always compromised by using non-THX certified speakers and a 12/24 high/low pass filter profile. Even if the FR of the speakers was also EQd to be flat (which does occur with an increasing number of auto-EQ AVRs), that alone does not ensure a correct speaker/subwoofer crossover transition unless the speakers are THX certified, and that is rarely the case. 

And if you think an "all in one" auto-EQ set-up like an AVR with MultEQ XT will somehow correct for the inherently flawed 12/24 crossover network when using non-THX speakers, you're dead wrong. No AVR can alter the acoustic F3 of a speaker, nor can it alter the acoustic roll-off profile (all bass reflex speakers roll-off 4th order). Furthermore, I've never seen any consumer AVR select an optimal crossover frequency for any speaker, even ones that are THX (sealed 80 Hz F3). Typically the AVR sets the crossover far deeper than optimal, and often sets even small and bass deficient speakers to Large (full-range)! Overriding the AVR speaker size selection is _mandatory_ in order to protect the speakers and also allow all deep bass to be played by the subwoofer. In addition, no consumer AVR _ever_ adjusts the FR of the subwoofer to compensate for perceived or actual FR/phase deficiencies of the speakers - if they adjust the FR of the subwoofer at all (and some don't even do that), it's always for a flat resonse to 200+ Hz, so the sub will track the low pass filter optimally. The AS-EQ1 is no different in that regard. 

None of the above problems with the speaker/subwoofer transition is the fault of the AS-EQ1, nor is it caused by the AS-EQ1, and it does not represent in any shape or manner a "fundamental flaw" of the product. A subwoofer with a flat FR will always sound better, and will also track any predicted low pass filter slope perfectly, thereby getting you "that much closer" to an ideal response.


----------



## Ed Mullen

markus76 said:


> Ed,
> 
> I have another question: the device uses FIR filters that introduce a delay in the signal path—how big is the latency? Is it fixed or variable?
> 
> Best, Markus



A fixed 8.5 ms latency which is included in the subwoofer distance recommendation by the AS-EQ1. For 2 channel users with pre/pros which lack a distance control, this latency must be physically compensated for by moving the subwoofer closer to the listener (often impractical), or by digitally delaying the input to the mains using an external DSP crossover like those available from Behringer. We're quite clear on this point in the owner's manual and with 2 channel customers who inquire about the unit in Sales and Tech Support.


----------



## Ed Mullen

markus76 said:


> Sonnie,
> 
> what do we see in those diagrams? Is it an average of multiple measurements? What smoothing? What window is applied?
> 
> Best, Markus
> 
> P.S. Please don't quote me wrong. I didn't say that the subwoofer calibration is fundamentally flawed. I said it's a fundamental flaw to NOT make the mains part of the calibration.


And my response (again) is that "all in one" AVRs will always target a flat FR for the speakers, and always target (if they EQ the subwoofer at all) a flat FR for the subwoofer. The phase/FR flaws inherent in the asymmetrical 12/24 crossover network are _always_ present whether the subwoofer is EQ'd internally by the AVR or externally by the AS-EQ1. The AS-EQ1 just does a better job of EQing the subwoofer than the AVR can. 

And if we think the above state-of-the art of auto-EQ AVRs represents a compromise (and who could argue otherwise), consider all the owners of legacy AVRs out there with no auto-EQ of the speakers at all. They are the ones who suffer the worst with just level matching, picking a global crossover frequency, and setting the distances. Again, the AS-EQ1 will also get legacy AVR owners "that much closer" to an ideal/optimal response by at least providing a flat subwoofer FR which perfectly tracks the predicted low pass filter slope, but it can't fix the speaker/subwoofer transition problems attendent with a 12/24 crossover, nor can even modern auto-EQ AVRs.


----------



## Ed Mullen

BigPines said:


> From a sub EQ perspective, we don't need to make any assumptions on what the crossover will be. We just need the FR to be as flat as possible. The AVR has the duty to integrate the subs and the mains not the sub EQ. If the AS-EQ1 calibration is run first (as recommended right?) and then the AVR calibration is run, the AVR has the sole responsibility of integrating the sub and the mains. I don't understand the problem.
> 
> Mike


If the AVR has auto-EQ, it should be run first. It will target a flat FR for the speakers down to their respective F3 points and then allow them to roll-off at either 2nd order or 4th order (depending on whether the are sealed or bass reflex). 

The AVR will typically make the error of setting any speaker to Large (full-range) which has usable output at/near 40 Hz (don't ask me who dreamed up this arbitrary cut-off). This must be manually overidden by the user of course. And if a given speaker is set to Small, the crossover frequency selected by the AVR has nothing to do with properly integrating with the subwoofer - rather it is always based on the acoustic F3 of the speaker. That is why you will see varying crossover frequencies for each channel rather than the global crossovers in legacy AVRs. And the subwoofer FR is always EQd flat. 

And (unfortunately) every speaker channel/subwoofer crossover transition is fraught with the potential for FR/phase problems, none of which are the fault of the AS-EQ1 and are simply something we all live with given the compromises of the 7 speaker/1 subwoofer, 12/24 crossover network. Yes - it's a compromise vs. 7 full-range speakers - we all get it. And frankly, these compromises loom far more ominously on paper and in forum threads than they do in reality. In reality, the speaker/subwoofer crossover transition is fairly benign - even with the inherent limitations discussed above - and doesn't cause untoward problems for the listener. What we typically here when the speaker FR is flat, the subwoofer FR is flat, the levels are all matched, and the distances are set correctly - is a smooth and seamless transition from the speaker channels to the subwoofer.


----------



## markus76

Ed,

I don't think looking at low frequency modal problems like that will yield optimal results. Even perfectly matched filter slopes for subwoofer and mains won't give you a flat frequency response in a real room due to a rooms unique modal behavior.
When you are trying to optimize for a single listening location you might get good results with EQs but when optimizing for a larger area, then EQs will fail. Only multiple low frequency sources (and/or absorption) can smooth spectral variance, but ALL low frequency sources have to be part of the calibration, i.e. (multiple) subwoofers AND mains.

Best, Markus


----------



## Ed Mullen

markus76 said:


> Ed,
> 
> I don't think looking at low frequency modal problems like that will yield optimal results. Even perfectly matched filter slopes for subwoofer and mains won't give you a flat frequency response in a real room due to a rooms unique modal behavior.
> When you are trying to optimize for a single listening location you might get good results with EQs but when optimizing for a larger area, then EQs will fail. Only multiple low frequency sources (and/or absorption) can smooth spectral variance, but ALL low frequency sources have to be part of the calibration, i.e. (multiple) subwoofers AND mains.
> 
> Best, Markus


The vast (overwhelming) majority of loudspeakers on the market are not truly full range (and by that I mean capable of usable/clean/loud extension to ~20 Hz), and therefore have no business being set to Large in the AVR. 

Setting a "full range" tower (which typically has a usable response to 35-40 Hz) to Large will result in several negative things: 1) the speaker will not play any source material below its usable lower extension limit, 2) THD and IMD will increase considerably when the (typical) 6-7" mid-bass driver is trying to reproduce loud source material in the 15-30 Hz octave, and 3) the AVR amp stage will reach its limits considerably earlier by dumping large amounts of current into the speaker trying to reproduce deep/loud source material, and will compress dynamics, distort/clip, and thermal-trip that much sooner. Bottom line, setting the speakers to Large in a HT application is ill-advised in virtually every scenario and application. 

Even if the speakers are set to Large (again, a big mistake 99.9% of the time), an auto-EQ AVR will still discretely target a flat FR for each speaker channel, and discretely target a flat FR for the subwoofer channel. It _does not_ look at the combined interactive/modal response of all (or even some) of the speakers and subwoofer at the same time.

If you want to call that an indictment/limitation/flaw of the current state-of-the-art of auto-EQ AVRs, that's certainly your prerogative. But don't single out the AS-EQ1 as a flawed product, because it does exactly what any auto-EQ AVR would do - it EQs the subwoofer for a flat response, it level matches the subwoofer with the front stage speakers, and it provides the correct subwoofer distance setting. And it does a better job of EQing a single subwoofer than any AVR can by virtue of its superior filter resolution and processing power, and it can also handle dual subwoofers (looking at the individual and combined responses), which no current AVR can do at all.


----------



## markus76

Ed,

I was not talking about running the speakers as "large" but about the frequency range at which subs and mains overlap and the modal region (everything <200–300Hz) as a whole.
And you're right, I was talking about "state-of-the-art" and not "state-of-the-art auto-EQs". Again, I didn't say that the AS-EQ1 is flawed, I said that excluding the mains from the system calibration is a mistake. Other boxes like the DSPeaker-Anti-Mode 8033 or JBLs BassQ have the same drawback.

Best, Markus


----------



## Ed Mullen

markus76 said:


> Ed,
> 
> I was not talking about running the speakers as "large" but about the frequency range at which subs and mains overlap and the modal region (everything <200–300Hz) as a whole.
> And you're right, I was talking about "state-of-the-art" and not "state-of-the-art auto-EQs". Again, I didn't say that the AS-EQ1 is flawed, I said that excluding the mains from the system calibration is a mistake. Other boxes like the DSPeaker-Anti-Mode 8033 or JBLs BassQ have the same drawback.
> 
> Best, Markus


No argument here, Markus - I'm not aware of any auto-EQ product (integrated or stand-alone) which evaluates the combined interactive/modal response of some/all of the speakers and the subwoofer.

Since the subwoofer roll-off is fairly steep (24 dB/octave), and is typically crossed at 80-100 Hz, I would argue its impact on the in-room FR in the 200-300 Hz region is exceedingly minor and is swamped by that of the speaker channels. 

The real issue is how the speaker and subwoofer interact _below_ the selected crossover frequency. Depending on the design and F3 of the loudspeaker, its roll-off slope below the selected crossover frequency is anything but consistent and predictable. And this will cause FR and phase anomalies with the subwoofer. The newer AVRs with independent crossovers for each channel are actually a double-edged sword. Imagine (typically) seven different loudspeakers (mains, center, side surrounds, rear surrounds) all with different FRs, different acoustic F3 points, different high pass filter points, different roll-off profiles/slopes, and different locations in the room - all interacting with a single subwoofer. The chances of a phase/FR-correct crossover between any one given speaker and subwoofer are nil. 

But, as I stated earlier, this sounds worse on paper than it does in reality. In reality, a flat FR at each channel and at the subwoofer, combined with common sense crossover frequencies for each channel, and proper level matching and distance settings, results in good sound quality and a seamless transition to the subwoofer. Does the entire concept represent one big compromise? Oh you betcha. Does that compromise truly manifest itself as bad sound - fortunately for HT enthusiasts, the answer is no.


----------



## BigPines

I'm glad that is settled. The bottom line is we don't live in a perfect world but the AS-EQ1 makes the world a little more perfect. 

I can't wait to see some REW graphs to compare with the graphs coming out of the AS-EQ1. It will be interesting to see an independent measurement.

I think one of these things is in my future.

Mike


----------



## markus76

Ed,

correct, there's no "auto-EQ product (integrated or stand-alone) which evaluates the combined interactive/modal response of some/all of the speakers and the subwoofer"—I learned that the AS-EQ1 is no exception here. That's why I asked in the first place.

My hope was that finally someone managed to "do it right" as described in the Welti paper. Guess I have to wait some more time.
Thanks anyway for taking the time to answer my questions. I appreciate that.

Best, Markus


----------



## Sonnie

BigPines said:


> I'm glad that is settled. The bottom line is we don't live in a perfect world but the AS-EQ1 makes the world a little more perfect.
> 
> I can't wait to see some REW graphs to compare with the graphs coming out of the AS-EQ1. It will be interesting to see an independent measurement.
> 
> I think one of these things is in my future.
> 
> Mike


Amen!


----------



## CharlieU

Frankly, I want to see graphs from guys that have wives with low WAF. Wooden floors, subwoofer stuck in a corner behind the potted plant, couch flush against the back wall. They post pictures of their setup that you could have sworn were on the cover of Better Homes and Gardens. You know, the guys that paid big bucks for a sub and still haven't heard more than 2 or 3 specific frequencies yet.  Flatline the After graph for these folks and SVS won't be able to keep the EQ1 in stock.

BTW, I'm not one of those guys. My living room looks like a bass trap warehouse. I count on low lighting and the Feature Presentation to distract my guests.


----------



## Ayreonaut

Hey guys, I discovered this thread late!

This is a very exciting product that I've been looking forward to for quite some time. But like others, I wondered what advantages this product would offer over what I'm using now.

Ed Mullen said "...it does exactly what any auto-EQ AVR would do - it EQs the subwoofer for a flat response, it level matches the subwoofer with the front stage speakers, and it provides the correct subwoofer distance setting. And it does a better job of EQing a single subwoofer than any AVR can by virtue of its superior filter resolution and processing power, and it can also handle dual subwoofers..."

I'd been using the BFD for years before I got a Denon AVR-888 (2808) with Mult-EQ. I realized that the filter resolution was not equal to the XT or Pro versions and I experimented. I measured the subwoofer response at all of my seats, averaged the results and flattened the average with the BFD. Then I ran the receiver Mult-EQ on top of that. The difference is subtle, but I believe that it is better than Mult-EQ alone. Basically, I'm giving Mult-EQ a a helping hand by presenting it with a flatter response to tweak. 

If you've got a BFD and a reciever with Mult-EQ, try it and let me know what you think. I'm satisfied with the results, but it does take a lot of know how to stack EQs this way. The AS-EQ1 is certainly much easier to use and may yield better results (or not). If I had two subs it would be a no-brainer!


----------



## stevefish69

Ed - I'm posting here as well as AV-Forums in a hope to get an answer.

I just got a chance to re-check the settiings manually using the Radioshack jobbie that was sent with the PCU and the internal tones sent out by the Audiolab. To set all channels to 75db i had to turn the gain on the back of the PCU back to 12 o'clock 

I just reconnected the EQ1 to the comp and supplied Mic and re-set the channels using this with the gain at just over 9 o'clock and reading a few db hot. It's suggesting to set it at just under 9 to match exactly.

I can only assume that the Radioshack SPL meters are nearly 15db over the odds when reading bass frequencies generated by the AP. Does this mean that anyone with an un-corrected SPL meter will be running their Sub's super hot without realising it like i was doing for years.

I'll try and get my Digital Meter back from a mate at the weekend and see if i get the same results with this.

I think that now the Gain has been lowered by so much, that i'll take advantage of the extra headroom available and tune to 10Hz next time i can be bothered to run the EQ1 calibration again. I used to get a lot of port noise in 10Hz tune, but running 15db hotwould probably have been the sole cause of this.


----------



## myc52002

My unit is on order and I have read the manual. Can't wait for it! I have (2) PB12 Ultra/2 stacked on each other in the right front corner by experimentation. They still are not right but it was the best I could do. I know what they are capable of from a previous room that I could set them up correctly. Would it be best to run them through the unit as 1 sub unit (connection 1 in the manual) or because of the stacking still run them as 2 separate units for processing? i.e is there any advantage or reason to process them separately versus as a single unit. 

Also, at one point they were separated to either side of the center channel next to the inside of each main speaker but I could never get them to sound anywhere near right due to room modes and my seating position which is fixed. Generally do you believe the unit will do a better job of integrating them overall as I have them positioned now or in my previous positioning? My opinion is more correction would be needed when they were separated to make them right but wonder if this unit actually prefers the separation more than co-located units.


----------



## robbroy

myc52002 said:


> My unit is on order and I have read the manual. Can't wait for it! I have (2) PB12 Ultra/2 stacked on each other in the right front corner by experimentation. They still are not right but it was the best I could do. I know what they are capable of from a previous room that I could set them up correctly. Would it be best to run them through the unit as 1 sub unit (connection 1 in the manual) or because of the stacking still run them as 2 separate units for processing? i.e is there any advantage or reason to process them separately versus as a single unit.
> 
> Also, at one point they were separated to either side of the center channel next to the inside of each main speaker but I could never get them to sound anywhere near right due to room modes and my seating position which is fixed. Generally do you believe the unit will do a better job of integrating them overall as I have them positioned now or in my previous positioning? My opinion is more correction would be needed when they were separated to make them right but wonder if this unit actually prefers the separation more than co-located units.


I would separate them and run as two subwoofers. There may be more correction, but that's what the unit is for (and common theory holds that separated subs will have more even response, so it should be less correction). If you keep them stacked, I would run them as one sub.

-Robb


----------



## myc52002

Thanks Robb. Seems I have found another issue. I have a Lexicon MC12 V5 Eq that uses a 4 mic system for setup yet this unit only has one mic input to integrate it properly. How am I supposed to hook it up in this setup? The lexicon manual says you can use only 1 mic but would degrade the accuracy and since I like what it has done with the overall freq response in the system I would not want to diminish that capability. Hmmm......


----------



## oakboy37

How would owners of older legacy processors be able to use this?

I have a Tag av32r NO 5.1 bypass so No multi channel inputs?

I don't really want to lose the tag sound, help?


----------



## dougm1950

oakboy37 said:


> How would owners of older legacy processors be able to use this?
> 
> I have a Tag av32r NO 5.1 bypass so No multi channel inputs?
> 
> I don't really want to lose the tag sound, help?


Based upon reading the manual, I would imagine there is no reason you can't just hook the Sat Out from the AS-EQ1 to the left input on a normal stereo analog input. Just remember to set the speakers to full range and disable any processing you may be performing on that input while calibrating.


----------



## oakboy37

That's what I was thinking/hoping!!


----------



## oakboy37

Anyone confirm this?


----------



## oakboy37

Well it is sitting in it's box, waiting,patiently,waiting......


----------



## dougm1950

oakboy37 said:


> Well it is sitting in it's box, waiting,patiently,waiting......


Are you waiting on confirmation regarding using a stereo input to calibrate, or you just like to tease yourself? :bigsmile:

Hook it up and try it out. Really, what's the difference between using the Left (White) stereo input and the Left Front input on a Multi channel input? The only difference I've ever seen is that most Multichannel inputs don't do any Bass Management or digital processing so you don't have to set your speakers to Large or disable any DSP modes like you would on your Stereo inputs. Some AVR/Pre-pros have an "Analog Direct" mode that would perfectly emulate most 5.1 inputs.


----------



## oakboy37

Thanks a lot for that, I didn't want to take it out in case I had to return it!!:coocoo:


----------



## BigPines

oakboy37 said:


> Thanks a lot for that, I didn't want to take it out in case I had to return it!!:coocoo:


There should be no problem returning the unit as long as you are still within 30 days (or is it 60?)...anyway, there is a good return policy on the unit. Ed could clarify.

Mike


----------



## MacDad2

Ok, so let me first say that SVS is one of the finest companies I have dealt with period. So here is a question for Ed and others. In my media room I have B&W Nautilus 802's and the smaller nautilus as surround with 2 SVS PB12-Plus Subs.. I'm very happy, but like many I tweak and retweak my subs all the time. I use a Lexicon MC-12B V2.01 as a pre-amp. 

So here is the question, I run my X-over in my MC12 very low, basically the subs are set at 80hz and the mains at 40hz, because well the mains are kick , good thing I wasn't married when I got them 

What are the odds the new re-eq will be able to calibrate ie.. flatten out the dual subs ( in different areas of the room ) and integrate with the mains well? I listen to music and watch movies of course. Would I better off switching to a single PB13 Ultra?

Thanks,
Mac


----------



## luckybeanbean

Hi guys, I am an AS-EQ1 user in Hong Kong. I am using 2 PC13U, and had been using behringer1124p all along. After recieving and calibrating the AS-EQ1 yesterday (I hope correctly), I found that although it can generate a flat curve just like FBD, the level of bass seems reduced quite a lot when the movie scene has very large dynamic bass. Very obvious when playing War of the World cracking ground scene. AS-EQ1 has no bass output when the ground was cracking. Does the AS-EQ1 has some kind of protection mechanism when the scene is too hot? thanks.


----------



## Rookie100fun

luckybeanbean said:


> Hi guys, I am an AS-EQ1 user in Hong Kong. I am using 2 PC13U, and had been using behringer1124p all along. After recieving and calibrating the AS-EQ1 yesterday (I hope correctly), I found that although it can generate a flat curve just like FBD, the level of bass seems reduced quite a lot when the movie scene has very large dynamic bass. Very obvious when playing War of the World cracking ground scene. AS-EQ1 has no bass output when the ground was cracking. Does the AS-EQ1 has some kind of protection mechanism when the scene is too hot? thanks.


I am an user of AS-EQ1 in Hong Kong and using 2 PC13U as well.

I also noticed that when playing movie content with large dynamic bass, it seems that the level of bass is reduced by AS-EQ1. For example, when the plane lost control inside the movie, "Flight of Phoenix", two significant low frequency signal are supposed to be heard from the subwoofers. However, the second low frequency signal was gone when using AS-EQ1. It was just like the bass was cut off all in a sudden.

In addition to the above observation, I also find that the actual channel output level is not at 75 db after went through all the setup steps at AS-EQ1. I measured the actual channel output level by using the signal generated by my AVR with a sound level meter. The reading for most channels and the subwoofers are around 69db to 71db.

Although I got a flat curve from AS-EQ1, the above findings made me wonder if something went wrong or not.

Please advise.

Many thanks!


----------



## JimP

Just to cover all bases, check your phase settings to be sure that you're not cancelling each other.

If its not that, I'd turn up the subwoofer level setting in my preamp or receiver.


----------



## Ed Mullen

The AS-EQ1 has absolutely no (zero, zip, nada, zilch) limiters or compression circuits. 

If you re-ran your auto-EQ as part of the set-up, your AVR may have set some/all of your speakers to Large (full-range). Check for this in your set-up menu and manually override back to Small with an appropriate crossover frequency (usually ~1/4-1/3 octave above the rated F3 of the speaker). 

There is plenty of deep bass in the speaker channels on the FOTP crash scene - so if the speakers are not bass capable and they were set to full-range by the AVR, the bass will appear to be missing/spotty on certain scenes.

Also, double check all limiter or compression circuits in the AVR - THX Ultra/2, Midnight Mode, Dynamic Range Compression, Subwoofer Peak Level, etc. are all examples of features which can kill your bass. 

Also check your LFE channel attenuation control, which is not the same as your subwoofer channel level. Usually the control range is from 0 to -10 (some AVRs even inexplicably allow the LFE channel to be shut-off completely), and this control should always be set to 0.


----------



## Rookie100fun

JimP said:


> Just to cover all bases, check your phase settings to be sure that you're not cancelling each other.
> 
> If its not that, I'd turn up the subwoofer level setting in my preamp or receiver.


Thank you for reminding me about the phase.

When I do the setup steps, I follow what the manual said; to leave the phase for both subwoofers at 0, and let the AS-EQ1 take care of the phase issue.

I was using one input-to-two output. Now, I wonder if it is because of the subwoofer placement and the phase issue. It is because I placed my 2 PC13U in left and right layout.

But, I also think of if it is the phase issue, how come I still can get a flat curve from the AS-EQ1?


----------



## Rookie100fun

Ed,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

I will re-run the Auto EQ again this weekend. And see if it is really because of the limiters inside my Denon AVP-A1HD.

By the way, do you have any comment on my findings on level matching? I only got an actual output level of 69db to 71db if I use a sound level meter with the use of the tone signal from my AVP-A1HD. I got such readings after went through all the AS-EQ1 setup steps.

Thanks & Regards,

Rookie100fun


----------



## JimP

It would still be flat, just lower in volume. 

Another way to check this out would be to unplug one of the subs and if your volume is now louder then your subs may have been cancelling each other. This could then be a polarity issue, but lets not go there if we don't need to.

Are you using any xlr cables and the adapters to RCA plugs?


----------



## Rookie100fun

JimP said:


> It would still be flat, just lower in volume.
> 
> Another way to check this out would be to unplug one of the subs and if your volume is now louder then your subs may have been cancelling each other. This could then be a polarity issue, but lets not go there if we don't need to.
> 
> Are you using any xlr cables and the adapters to RCA plugs?


JimP,

After reading your comment, I think when I re-run the Auto EQ, I'd better get back to the very basic; start doing a one subwoofer calibration first.

Yes, I was using a XLR-to-RCA adapter to connect the subwoofer out from my AVP-A1HD to the AS-EQ1 input. 

Thanks & Regards,

Rookie100Fun


----------



## luckybeanbean

JimP said:


> Just to cover all bases, check your phase settings to be sure that you're not cancelling each other.
> 
> If its not that, I'd turn up the subwoofer level setting in my preamp or receiver.


this is my curve before, and after. doesn't look like an cancellation. Maybe I should turn up the gain of my subwoofer? 
But what I don't understand is that when I use BFD, it can also get a curve almost like the second graph, but the bass output is a lot "more". maybe I did something wrong?


----------



## markus76

luckybeanbean ,

that's exactly what I expected to happen when I posted “although the AS-EQ1 sounds promising it has a fundamental flaw—to have the subwoofers calibrated, the mains need be part of the calibration procedure. Otherwise the whole frequency range where subs and mains cross over will be uncorrected.” (Post #136).

Now you need to calibrate the calibrated output...
The only way to do it right is to calibrate ALL low frequency sources AT ONCE. Even when highpassed, the mains and surrounds will radiate low frequencies in the crossover region.

Best, Markus


----------



## luckybeanbean

Ed Mullen said:


> The AS-EQ1 has absolutely no (zero, zip, nada, zilch) limiters or compression circuits.
> 
> If you re-ran your auto-EQ as part of the set-up, your AVR may have set some/all of your speakers to Large (full-range). Check for this in your set-up menu and manually override back to Small with an appropriate crossover frequency (usually ~1/4-1/3 octave above the rated F3 of the speaker).
> 
> There is plenty of deep bass in the speaker channels on the FOTP crash scene - so if the speakers are not bass capable and they were set to full-range by the AVR, the bass will appear to be missing/spotty on certain scenes.
> 
> Also, double check all limiter or compression circuits in the AVR - THX Ultra/2, Midnight Mode, Dynamic Range Compression, Subwoofer Peak Level, etc. are all examples of features which can kill your bass.
> 
> Also check your LFE channel attenuation control, which is not the same as your subwoofer channel level. Usually the control range is from 0 to -10 (some AVRs even inexplicably allow the LFE channel to be shut-off completely), and this control should always be set to 0.



I just unpluged my BFD and calibrated the ASEQ1 without adjusting any setting on my AVR. Let me do the calibration again tonight then. Maybe I am missing a step or something.


----------



## luckybeanbean

markus76 said:


> luckybeanbean ,
> 
> that's exactly what I expected to happen when I posted “although the AS-EQ1 sounds promising it has a fundamental flaw—to have the subwoofers calibrated, the mains need be part of the calibration procedure. Otherwise the whole frequency range where subs and mains cross over will be uncorrected.” (Post #136).
> 
> Now you need to calibrate the calibrated output...
> The only way to do it right is to calibrate ALL low frequency sources AT ONCE. Even when highpassed, the mains and surrounds will radiate low frequencies in the crossover region.
> 
> Best, Markus


sorry that my english is not good enough. I really don't understand how my complaint of insufficient low bass be related to the crossover of mains. sorry.


----------



## markus76

luckybeanbean,

use REW’s RTA with white noise played from ALL speakers simultaneously (subs, L, C, R and surrounds), low bandwidth (200-300Hz) and a fairly long averaging time. Do that for both set ups (BFD and AS-EQ1). This will show you what the bass frequency response really is like.

Best, Markus


----------



## JimP

Rookie,
Do you have REW setup on your computer or otherwise have a way of generating a 80hz signal (or whatever your crossover is set for) and a way of measuring your SPL such as a radio shack SPL meter?

Beans,
What's your crossover frequency?


Rookie and Beans,
Did you adjust subwoofer distance according to what AS-EQ1 recommended?


----------



## Ed Mullen

Rookie100fun said:


> Ed,
> 
> Thank you for your prompt reply.
> 
> I will re-run the Auto EQ again this weekend. And see if it is really because of the limiters inside my Denon AVP-A1HD.
> 
> By the way, do you have any comment on my findings on level matching? I only got an actual output level of 69db to 71db if I use a sound level meter with the use of the tone signal from my AVP-A1HD. I got such readings after went through all the AS-EQ1 setup steps.
> 
> Thanks & Regards,
> 
> Rookie100fun


Yes, we are seeing comments like this from other users. That is why we require the user to also calibrate the speaker channels after setting the subwoofer level. Making sure the subwoofer and speakers are all set to the same level is far more important than the absolute SPL they are set to. 

There will be variances between the AS-EQ1 mic, other auto-EQ AVR mics, and the RS meter. If you have a calibrated SPL meter and want to set the subwoofer and speaker channels to a known reference SPL, you can do that after calibration with the AS-EQ1 - just make sure to keep the relative channel levels the same and increase/decrease all channels globally by the same amount.


----------



## Rookie100fun

JimP said:


> Rookie,
> Do you have REW setup on your computer or otherwise have a way of generating a 80hz signal (or whatever your crossover is set for) and a way of measuring your SPL such as a radio shack SPL meter?
> 
> Beans,
> What's your crossover frequency?
> 
> 
> Rookie and Beans,
> Did you adjust subwoofer distance according to what AS-EQ1 recommended?


Jim,

Yes, I got REW setup and a radio shack SPL meter. I will verify the output level by the using REW.

Also, I have adjusted the subwoofer distance inside my AVR according to what AS-EQ1 has recommended.


----------



## Rookie100fun

Ed Mullen said:


> Yes, we are seeing comments like this from other users. That is why we require the user to also calibrate the speaker channels after setting the subwoofer level. Making sure the subwoofer and speakers are all set to the same level is far more important than the absolute SPL they are set to.
> 
> There will be variances between the AS-EQ1 mic, other auto-EQ AVR mics, and the RS meter. If you have a calibrated SPL meter and want to set the subwoofer and speaker channels to a known reference SPL, you can do that after calibration with the AS-EQ1 - just make sure to keep the relative channel levels the same and increase/decrease all channels globally by the same amount.


Ed,

Thank you for your reply again.

Got what you mean. I will remember to make sure the speaker channels and subwoofer are all set to same level.

Once I re-run everything this weekend, I will share my findings here again. Hope that this time I will get it right. 

Best regards,

Rookie


----------



## JimP

Rookie,

Great!!!

Run 3 REW sweeps. One for mains and left sub, one for mains and right sub and one for mains and both subs. If your mains and both subs shows a wide dip at and around your crossover region, then there's something up with your polarity of phase.

I'm not convinced that some of the XLR cables aren't wired backwards inverting your polarity. I think that's what may have happened with one of mine. The diagnostic above should help narrow down which sub (or wiring of the sub).

Also, as Ed said above, recheck your levels with your spl meter to see that they're relatively the same.

Edit: You type faster than I do. lol


----------



## Ed Mullen

markus76 said:


> luckybeanbean,
> 
> use REW’s RTA with white noise played from ALL speakers simultaneously (subs, L, C, R and surrounds), low bandwidth (200-300Hz) and a fairly long averaging time. Do that for both set ups (BFD and AS-EQ1). This will show you what the bass frequency response really is like.
> 
> Best, Markus


While the speakers will definitely have some impact on the bass response in the room, it will be fairly minor compared to the subwoofer/room response which will be the dominant influence, provided the speakers are set to Small with a fairly high crossover (say 80-100 Hz, typical).

Also, you may want to run individual speakers (or single channels) in addition to all speakers at once and do a comparison. All speakers playing the same bass information would be the exception rather than the norm, and the additional information of seeing each speaker/channel independently could be quite useful. 

Also, expect some comb filtering from pairs of speakers, depending on their relative location in the room, which is another reason you may want to consider individual speaker contributions as opposed to pairs of speakers, or all speakers at once. 

Did you really mean to say "white noise" above?


----------



## Rookie100fun

JimP said:


> Rookie,
> 
> Great!!!
> 
> Run 3 REW sweeps. One for mains and left sub, one for mains and right sub and one for mains and both subs. If your mains and both subs shows a wide dip at and around your crossover region, then there's something up with your polarity of phase.
> 
> I'm not convinced that some of the XLR cables aren't wired backwards inverting your polarity. I think that's what may have happened with one of mine. The diagnostic above should help narrow down which sub (or wiring of the sub).
> 
> Also, as Ed said above, recheck your levels with your spl meter to see that they're relatively the same.
> 
> Edit: You type faster than I do. lol


Jim,

Thank you for your further advise.

I will bear in mind to check the polarity of the phase. To make thing simple, I'd better use the subwoofer RCA output this time. Once I mastered the setup, I will try to see if I can crawl out more juice by using the XLR output. =P

Best regards,

Rookie


----------



## Ed Mullen

luckybeanbean said:


> this is my curve before, and after. doesn't look like an cancellation. Maybe I should turn up the gain of my subwoofer?
> But what I don't understand is that when I use BFD, it can also get a curve almost like the second graph, but the bass output is a lot "more". maybe I did something wrong?


Before checking before/after FR, be sure you are permanently saving the EQ solution to the AS-EQ1. Do not use the temporary transfer function in order to check before/after FR.


----------



## markus76

Ed Mullen said:


> Did you really mean to say "white noise" above?


Yes. Use low pass filtered white noise to make it more pleasant to your ears.

Best, Markus


----------



## luckybeanbean

Finally know what I did wrong 

1. because I was using XLR to connect my BFD with subwoofers (or maybe the BFD has a higher output), and I now use RCA connecting my SVS EQ to subwoofer, the avamp subwoofer gain need to add at least +8db to compensate the difference. 
2. Room gain was set to small, and it cut too much deep bass, causing a dip on 20hz.

Now, after recalibrate everything again, it is just amazing. During world of the war cracking ground, my hair moves which I didn't get with 1124p.

sorry to cause panic.


----------



## Ed Mullen

luckybeanbean said:


> Finally know what I did wrong
> 
> 1. because I was using XLR to connect my BFD with subwoofers (or maybe the BFD has a higher output), and I now use RCA connecting my SVS EQ to subwoofer, the avamp subwoofer gain need to add at least +8db to compensate the difference.
> 2. Room gain was set to small, and it cut too much deep bass, causing a dip on 20hz.
> 
> Now, after recalibrate everything again, it is just amazing. During world of the war cracking ground, my hair moves which I didn't get with 1124p.
> 
> sorry to cause panic.


Glad to hear you've sorted out everything and the AS-EQ1 is performing beyond your expectations. :yay: 

I would imagine you caught the problem at the level matching stage of the set-up, which is why we require it as part of the procedure. It will catch an abnormally low drive level going to the subwoofer because the sub calibration level will be much lower than the speaker calibration level when the sub/speaker test tones are played.

Even if the absolute SPL shown on the AS-EQ1 doesn't perfectly jive with other sources/references, _always_ perform the level matching step on the subwoofer and the speaker channels. A global change to all trim levels can always be conducted after the set-up has been run, if desired.


----------



## MartinTong

amazing


----------



## Lordoftherings

Quick question: Does receivers that includes Audyssey MultEQ XT are already applying filters at 32 frequencies in the bass region and down to a low of about 5hz?


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Lordoftherings said:


> Quick question: Does receivers that includes Audyssey MultEQ XT are already applying filters at 32 frequencies in the bass region and down to a low of about 5hz?


Where do you come up with 32 frequencies? 

Kal


----------



## Ed Mullen

The AS-EQ1 has 2X the filter resolution of the consumer version of MultEQ XT, and also has more processing power and can handle dual subs independently.

The consumer version of MultEQ XT can be perfectly adequate for certain applications, so we've been telling prospective AS-EQ1 buyers to independently verify the existing FR if possible, and then we'll determine if it's a wise investment to upgrade to the AS-EQ1. The worse the FR, the bigger the benefit from upgrading to the AS-EQ1, and if you have non-colocated duals, it's game over.

And of course there are the legacy AVRs out there with no auto-EQ, and also auto-EQ AVRs which don't EQ the subwoofer at all (like the Pio MCACC). In those cases, the AS-EQ1 is also a big benefit.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Ed Mullen said:


> The AS-EQ1 has 2X the filter resolution of the consumer version of MultEQ XT, and also has more processing power and can handle dual subs independently.


So, that means it has the same filter resolution as the SEQ but adds facilities to handle multiple subs. No?

Kal


----------



## markus76

Ed Mullen said:


> The AS-EQ1 has 2X the filter resolution of the consumer version of MultEQ XT


Hello Ed,

I'm not sure if this was asked before but was is the exact filter resolution of the AS-EQ1?

Best, Markus


----------



## Ed Mullen

Kal Rubinson said:


> So, that means it has the same filter resolution as the SEQ but adds facilities to handle multiple subs. No?
> 
> Kal


Correct - the AS-EQ1 is based on the Pro box technology and hardware.


----------



## MartinTong

Do you feel so beautiful ?


Sub A - PC13-Ultra
Sub B - M&K MX350 MKII


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Ed Mullen said:


> Correct - the AS-EQ1 is based on the Pro box technology and hardware.


Yes. I recognize the LEDs. :thud:

Kal


----------



## Rookie100fun

MartinTong said:


> Do you feel so beautiful ?


:T:T:T


----------



## Lordoftherings

Kal Rubinson said:


> Where do you come up with 32 frequencies?
> 
> Kal


Oups! Kal you are right. I screw up, I took the number 32 from the the 32 possible position measurements from the Audyssey Pro calibration system.

Very sorry about that. 

But I do believe that Audyssey MultEQ XT uses something like 512 FIR filters (the Denon AVR-5805 does).
But this is across the full range. 
Will be interesting to know how many are use only for the subwoofer(s), or let say below 100hz or so, and down to 5hz.

Maybe Chris will be able to provide some help into this.

Bob


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Lordoftherings said:


> Maybe Chris will be able to provide some help into this.
> 
> Bob


He never has.........so far.

Kal


----------



## Lordoftherings

Ed Mullen said:


> The AS-EQ1 has 2X the filter resolution of the consumer version of MultEQ XT, and also has more processing power and can handle dual subs independently.
> 
> The consumer version of MultEQ XT can be perfectly adequate for certain applications, so we've been telling prospective AS-EQ1 buyers to independently verify the existing FR if possible, and then we'll determine if it's a wise investment to upgrade to the AS-EQ1. The worse the FR, the bigger the benefit from upgrading to the AS-EQ1, and if you have non-colocated duals, it's game over.
> 
> And of course there are the legacy AVRs out there with no auto-EQ, and also auto-EQ AVRs which don't EQ the subwoofer at all (like the Pio MCACC). In those cases, the AS-EQ1 is also a big benefit.


Well thank you very much sir for this brief & enlightening explanation.

Does the Denon AVP-A1HDCI has the capability to EQ his 3 sub outputs?

Also, do you have more filters apply to the sub region when using the Audyssey Pro EQ version?

And on your last point about legacy AVRs, cool, but why not just get a total new receiver with all the latest features and Audyssey MultEQ XT for the same price of the AS-EQ1?

For another point, do you know a bit about the new Audyssey DSX? Does it uses IIR filters in conjunction with FIR filters?

Bob


----------



## Lordoftherings

Kal Rubinson said:


> He never has.........so far.
> 
> Kal


Yep, I thought of that.

So, basically the SEQ is the same as the Pro version of Audyssey? With the same numbers of FIR filters?
And the AS-EQ1 is the version of these, but only for the subwoofer(s)?

About the DSX version? From what I read so far, in addition of using FIR filters, it uses also IIR (Infinite Impulse Response) filters? 

Seems that ARC from Anthem is spelling over on Audyssey?

Bob


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Lordoftherings said:


> Yep, I thought of that.
> 
> So, basically the SEQ is the same as the Pro version of Audyssey? With the same numbers of FIR filters?


No. Apples vs. orangeade. The SEQ is a hardware EQ. The Pro software must be used with it but can also be used with many MultiEQ XT products as well.



> And the AS-EQ1 is the version of these, but only for the subwoofer(s)?


Similar, as Ed says but the AS-EQ1 can EQ multiple subs independently and has added facilities for that.



> Seems that ARC from Anthem is spelling over on Audyssey?


I noticed the "spellover," too. :huh:

Kal


----------



## Lordoftherings

Thanks Kal. :whew:

Bob


----------



## Lordoftherings

Mmm... If only that TacT TCS mkIII was less money... :daydream: 

Perhaps it will spellover on less costly versions. :scratchhead: 
Same as the AS-EQ1 SubEQ.

Bob


----------



## aNomad

Lordoftherings said:


> But I do believe that Audyssey MultEQ XT uses something like 512 FIR filters (the Denon AVR-5805 does).
> But this is across the full range.


I have read and read Audyssey's lit, and I have yet to figure out how many filters they have, what kind they are, and what they do. Either I'm blinded by science, or they aren't telling. They mention "points", but I don't know what that means, only what it implies. Where did you get that info Bob? I'd love to read up on it.:T I have a hard time believing they have 512 filters per channel.


----------



## Lordoftherings

aNomad said:


> I have read and read Audyssey's lit, and I have yet to figure out how many filters they have, what kind they are, and what they do. Either I'm blinded by science, or they aren't telling. They mention "points", but I don't know what that means, only what it implies. Where did you get that info Bob? I'd love to read up on it.:T I have a hard time believing they have 512 filters per channel.


Hi,

Thank you for your interest and disbelief.

The 512 FIR filters from the Denon AVR-5805 are mentioned in the review of the 5805 at "Ultimate AV Mag" from January 2006 by Thomas J. Norton: -> http://www.ultimateavmag.com/avreceivers/106denon
Just go to page 3 under the banner "2006: A Space Audyssey".
Here: http://www.ultimateavmag.com/avreceivers/106denon/index2.html

Chris, the main man at Audyssey will not mention how many filters there are in the different version of Aydyssey (2EQ, MultEQ, MultEQ XT, SEQ, DSX and PRO software version).

I can assure you one thing though for sure, is that Denon and others too with Audyssey, are using more and very sophisticated filters compared to the very basic room EQ of other manufacturers (YPAO, MCACC, SARS & MRAC).

The Audyssey Automatic Room EQ uses FIR (Finite Impulse Response) filters.
Now with DSX, they are using a combination of FIR and IIR (Infinite Impulse Response) filters.

Anthem with their own Room Correction (ARC) is also using IIR filters.

To find more about Audyssey and their algorithms for their system, just go to their web site. 
You will find there what kind of filters they are, what they do (frequency & time domain), and more.
But no numbers, as to how many filters total from their various models. But way more than any other system, except the ones by high end companies with digital automatic room correction EQ (Anthem ARC1, TacT TCS mkIII and Sig Tech Timefield 2000 and up, to name a few).

These are quite complex systems, where the engineers work for many years to perfect, so it is normal that they keep some secrets about it. I would too.

But if you do some serious searching, you will find some amazing discoveries about the extreme complexity involve in some of them. The one that really blow me is from TacT TCS mkIII and also from Sig Tech Timefield 2000.

Google "CARROUSO" (Creating, Assessing and Rendering in Real time Of high quality aUdio-viSual envirOnments in mpeg-4 content). Just for the fun of it. 
Another one is "TRINNOV". 
There are more, one of them (I forgot the name) in Los Angeles, is using 384 discrete channel speakers and 8 discrete subwoofers!
And there are some also from Germany, Finland and other European countries.

When you really start to get into this, there is no Exit, no Limit.

I will go as far as to do my own prediction: in the future, we will see programs that analyse and measure your OWN room with all the furnitures and different materials, exact size to the mm precision, and then from that program your room will be automatically EQ to perfection. We are getting closer by the year, or even months. It will be just like your own computer with software taken from your own room, similar to Audyssey Pro software version, but you will not have to hire a pro, you will downloaded yourself all the requirements from your own measurements, and pick from various EQ target curves with ultra precision.

And do believe about using FIR filters with up to 512 taps, it's no bull. This is from the Audyssey MultEQ XT in the AVR-5805.
I bet that there are even much more with the PRO software version, where the bass is 8 times more EQ.
As few as 32 taps are used in less sophisticated versions of MultEQ (2EQ).
The Audyssey Pro software version can take up to 32 microphone positions' measurements.

And the "points" as you mentioned is more accurately referred as "taps". Taps are the various frequency
points across the entire audible frequency range. Many of those taps are concentrated in the bass range, where they are said to provide good resolution down to now 10hz or even lower (5hz).
Some Digital EQ correct bass down to a very low 0.6 Hertz (or perhaps lower), and with a distance accuracy to 6 millimeters (maybe even smaller by now)!

TacT digital room-correction system can perform Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) room-response measurements with greater accuracy and less noise than any dedicated instrument extant (from the review
of the Tact Audio RCS 2.2, Digital Room-Correction System, in the "Audio" The equipment authority magazine, by Anthony H. Cordesman, in the January 2000 issue).

I hope this help on putting you in the right path to the world of Digital Automatic EQ Room Correction.

Regards,

Bob

P.S. Remember the Denon AVR-3805 from 2004 with it's Automatic setup/Room EQ?
That is a Parametric EQ with 8 bands from a maximum of 60 different frequency points across the entire audible range from 20hz to 20khz. How do I know? I made about over 100 or so measurements, and I counted them. So, 10 octaves, 60 points = 1/6 octave parametric EQ with the Frequency, the Gain and the Q.


----------



## JohnM

Lordoftherings said:


> I will go as far as to do my own prediction: in the future, we will see programs that analyse and measure your OWN room with all the furnitures and different materials, exact size to the mm precision, and then from that program your room will be automatically EQ to perfection. We are getting closer by the year, or even months. It will be just like your own computer with software taken from your own room, similar to Audyssey Pro software version, but you will not have to hire a pro, you will downloaded yourself all the requirements from your own measurements, and pick from various EQ target curves with ultra precision.


The physical region over which an EQ system can correct for the physical characteristics of a room is frequency dependent, the higher the frequency the smaller the region that can be successfully corrected. The region in which correction operates succesfully can be expanded by using multiple speakers distributed around the listening area to generate the correction signals but there are no such systems outside research facilities. Malcolm Hawksford summarised that nicely in a paper in 1991 Hawksford paper, although many years have passed the laws of physics have remained stubbornly unchanged.



Lordoftherings said:


> And the "points" as you mentioned is more accurately referred as "taps". Taps are the various frequency
> points across the entire audible frequency range. Many of those taps are concentrated in the bass range, where they are said to provide good resolution down to now 10hz or even lower (5hz).


The taps of an FIR filter are simply the values of each sample of the filter's impulse response, they are separated in time by the sample rate at which the filter operates. The low frequency resolution is determined by the total duration of the filter's impulse response = number of taps divided by the sample rate.



Lordoftherings said:


> TacT digital room-correction system can perform Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) room-response measurements with greater accuracy and less noise than any dedicated instrument extant.


Nonsense.


----------



## Lordoftherings

JohnM said:


> The physical region over which an EQ system can correct for the physical characteristics of a room is frequency dependent, the higher the frequency the smaller the region that can be successfully corrected. The region in which correction operates succesfully can be expanded by using multiple speakers distributed around the listening area to generate the correction signals but there are no such systems outside research facilities. Malcolm Hawksford summarised that nicely in a paper in 1991 Hawksford paper, although many years have passed the laws of physics have remained stubbornly unchanged.
> 
> The taps of an FIR filter are simply the values of each sample of the filter's impulse response, they are separated in time by the sample rate at which the filter operates. The low frequency resolution is determined by the total duration of the filter's impulse response = number of taps divided by the sample rate.
> 
> Nonsense.


Thank you John for the nice explanation.

Yes, I know that EQ works best at lower frequencies, where let say, below 250hz, is the most valuable.
And it is interesting to note that more speakers contribute to a more succesful and accurate room EQ.
I forgot the name of that research theater in Los Angeles, where they are using a few thousand of speakers (all discrete channels) in addition to 8 subwoofers. I will do a bit of search and come back with more.
Thanks for the link that you provided.

For me, TAPS = Time Arrival Per Sample. Thanks for your precision.

As for TacT (with FFT), that was back in the year 2000. I should have make clear of that, sorry.
I did add this information now on my previous post, with the exact provenance.

Best regards,

Bob


----------



## goonstopher

Ed Mullen said:


> The AS-EQ1 has 2X the filter resolution of the consumer version of MultEQ XT, and also has more processing power and can handle dual subs independently.
> 
> The consumer version of MultEQ XT can be perfectly adequate for certain applications, so we've been telling prospective AS-EQ1 buyers to independently verify the existing FR if possible, and then we'll determine if it's a wise investment to upgrade to the AS-EQ1. The worse the FR, the bigger the benefit from upgrading to the AS-EQ1, and *if you have non-colocated duals, it's game over.*
> 
> And of course there are the legacy AVRs out there with no auto-EQ, and also auto-EQ AVRs which don't EQ the subwoofer at all (like the Pio MCACC). In those cases, the AS-EQ1 is also a big benefit.


Ed can you explain this part? Does it mean this would be a good or bad situation for the AS-EQ1?


----------



## Lordoftherings

All right, I did some more research.

First I have to correct a previous mistake when I mentioned "using close to 3,000 speakers", it should have read "384 discrete speakers plus 8 discrete subwoofers".
Sorry for that mistake. I corrected my prior post.

Now, the name of that research is called IOSONO, and it does use 384 discrete speakers (channels), plus 8 discrete subwoofers.
It is situated in one commercial setup in a Mann Theater in Los Angeles.

For more info, click here: http://www.iosono-sound.com/

This information came from Marc Fishman, re-recording mixer for the last 13 years as in the film sound business.

According to Chris from Audyssey; "MultEQ XT performs correction using 4,000 points of control to shape the response in the subwoofer channel".
And with the SubEQ from the Pro software version 3.0, the number of points increases to 8,000 (this is the capability of the DSP chip, not necessary the actual number applied).

Audyssey is expanding quite fast. Here's some links:

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

Audyssey facts: http://www.audyssey.com/faq/index.html#largesmall
(Just scroll to the top, for several questions and fact's answers.)

Audyssey DSX (Dynamic Surround Expansion): http://www.audyssey.com/index.html

For Velodyne sub with digital EQ in conjunction with Audyssey room EQ (for additional information purpose): http://www.velodyne.com/newsletter/volumes/v14/article_4.html

And for Harman Kardon on positioning multi subs:
http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/multsubs.pdf

For more on TacT (TacT uses FIR filters): www.tactlabs.com

For a very good DAC for listening measurement (this DAC compares to the EMM Labs DDC2 SE, which retails for $13,500 USA), called the Logitech Transporter:
http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_transporter.html

I also found the name of another digital room EQ, based on Europe, but not as good as the TacT system, it is called LYNGDORF.

Now, we have Audyssey 2EQ, Audyssey MultEQ, Audyssey MultEQ XT, MultEQ XT PRO software version 3.0, Audyssey DSX, SEQ (Sound EQ), AS-EQ SubEQ, and another one Audyssey version for HTIB version, which I forgot the name, fey! That's quite a few!

That's about it for now. I hope these links will provide some additional informations in the complexities and sophistications of Audyssey Digital Room Correction and Calibration.

And from what I read so far, the Audyssey PRO version is the way to go. So I really hope that it will eventually be available on products that are more affordable to more people, and with easy access to the Audyssey PRO kit.
* Because, I do fimly believe on multiple choice of target curves, curtailed for you own room sound.

Bob


----------



## Lordoftherings

goonstopher said:


> Ed can you explain this part? Does it mean this would be a good or bad situation for the AS-EQ1?


If I may, I think that what he meant is if you have two (or even more) subwoofers that are at a separate distance from the listening position, there is no other method than the AS-EQ1 to properly EQ your two subs. Because of the level and delay (without mentioning the phase) between the two are dissimilar.

But I believe that you can EQ multiple subs from Audyssey Pro version 3.0 software program.

Bob


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Lordoftherings said:


> If I may, I think that what he meant is if you have two (or even more) subwoofers that are at a separate distance from the listening position, there is no other method than the AS-EQ1 to properly EQ your two subs. Because of the level and delay (without mentioning the phase) between the two are dissimilar.
> 
> But I believe that you can EQ multiple subs from Audyssey Pro version 3.0 software program.
> 
> Bob


The program cannot do it if the hardware does not support it. Again, the Pro software is only software.

Kal


----------



## Lordoftherings

Kal Rubinson said:


> The program cannot do it if the hardware does not support it. Again, the Pro software is only software.
> 
> Kal


Kal, I thought that on this one we were talking about the AS-EQ1 SubEQ, which can properly EQ two subs.

Anyway, that's what I was referring to.

Bob

P.S. By the way, take care of the boys at AVS., some of them are in desperate need of... :coocoo:


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Lordoftherings said:


> Kal, I thought that on this one we were talking about the AS-EQ1 SubEQ, which can properly EQ two subs.
> 
> Anyway, that's what I was referring to.


And I was referring to your statement: "But I believe that you can EQ multiple subs from Audyssey Pro version 3.0 software program."

Kal


----------



## Lordoftherings

Kal Rubinson said:


> And I was referring to your statement: "But I believe that you can EQ multiple subs from Audyssey Pro version 3.0 software program."
> 
> Kal


Of course you can, the Denon AVP-A1HDCI has three subwoofer outputs and they are all individually EQ correctable.

So, what that means is that the AVP-A1HDCI has the right hardware to enable that from the Audyssey Pro version 3.0 software.

And same for the AS-EQ1, which can EQ up to two subs individually, right?

Bob


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Lordoftherings said:


> Of course you can, the Denon AVP-A1HDCI has three subwoofer outputs and they are all individually EQ correctable.
> 
> So, what that means is that the AVP-A1HDCI has the right hardware to enable that from the Audyssey Pro version 3.0 software.
> 
> And same for the AS-EQ1, which can EQ up to two subs individually, right?
> 
> Bob


Mebbe you need some sleep. The Denon does have multiple sub outputs and, afaik, can EQ them separately with its built-in Audyssey MultEQ XT. One can *also *use the Pro software with it.

The AVS can EQ two separate subs and, afaik, cannot use the Pro software. The software that comes with it has some of the features of the Pro software.

Now, again, the ability to handle and EQ two subs separately is inherent in the hardware. It is not endowed by the use of Pro.

Kal


----------



## Lordoftherings

Kal Rubinson said:


> Mebbe you need some sleep. The Denon does have multiple sub outputs and, afaik, can EQ them separately with its built-in Audyssey MultEQ XT. One can *also *use the Pro software with it.
> 
> The AVS can EQ two separate subs and, afaik, cannot use the Pro software. The software that comes with it has some of the features of the Pro software.
> 
> Now, again, the ability to handle and EQ two subs separately is inherent in the hardware. It is not endowed by the use of Pro.
> 
> Kal


Lol, I just woke up. Plenty of sleep. 

100% agree with each word from your post. :T

Was there something awkward in my previous phrasing? addle:

Bob

P.S. By the way, is "afaik" stands for: And For Additional Information K... (Kal)? :help:


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Lordoftherings said:


> Lol, I just woke up. Plenty of sleep.
> 
> 100% agree with each word from your post. :T
> 
> Was there something awkward in my previous phrasing? addle:


Yeah. That may be it as I see many of your posts to be 'almost' right and subject to what I see as imprecise wording. Haven't you noticed the pattern of post and riposte? :boxer:



> P.S. By the way, is "afaik" stands for: And For Additional Information K... (Kal)? :help:


*A*s *F*ar *A*s *I* *K*now, no.

Kal


----------



## Lordoftherings

Kal Rubinson said:


> Yeah. That may be it as I see many of your posts to be 'almost' right and subject to what I see as imprecise wording. Haven't you noticed the pattern of post and riposte? :boxer:
> 
> *A*s *F*ar *A*s *I* *K*now, no.
> 
> Kal


Thanks Kal,

"As far as I know", I love this, cool. How come I didn't know that? :duh:

And here at the Shack, we enjoy each other. :yay: :neener: :rofl: Not like at AVS, sometimes...:boxer::surrender:

It's nice to see you here at the Shack Kal, I hope you enjoy all the very nice people. :rant:
And don't take my smilies too seriously, I just love them so much, they cut our words short to put some very fun humor in our exchanges. :blink: :shh:

Here's to you :hail: Kal,

Bob


----------



## eugovector

AFAIK = As Far As I Know


----------



## aNomad

Lordoftherings said:


> Hi,
> 
> Thank you for your interest and disbelief.


You're welcome, I can disbelieve all kinds of things  Thank you for all of the info! You seem to know a lot about it, are you an Audyssey insider?



Lordoftherings said:


> The 512 FIR filters from the Denon AVR-5805 are mentioned in the review of the 5805 at "Ultimate AV Mag" from January 2006 by Thomas J. Norton: -> http://www.ultimateavmag.com/avreceivers/106denon
> Just go to page 3 under the banner "2006: A Space Audyssey".
> Here: http://www.ultimateavmag.com/avreceivers/106denon/index2.html
> 
> Chris, the main man at Audyssey will not mention how many filters there are in the different version of Aydyssey (2EQ, MultEQ, MultEQ XT, SEQ, DSX and PRO software version).


Yes, I have noticed. 512 taps, yes I believe that. That will cause a 5ms delay in the sound (per filter). 512 filters? no way.



JohnM said:


> The taps of an FIR filter are simply the values of each sample of the filter's impulse response, they are separated in time by the sample rate at which the filter operates. The low frequency resolution is determined by the total duration of the filter's impulse response = number of taps divided by the sample rate.


Yes, that's right. With an FIR filter, many taps are necessary for LF resolution. My guess would be the actual number of taps varies depending upon the frequency and Q of the stage. I still don't know how many _FILTERS_ are used per channel.



Lordoftherings said:


> These are quite complex systems, where the engineers work for many years to perfect, so it is normal that they keep some secrets about it. I would too.


I say that depends upon the secrets. Proprietary algorithms, yes. How many filters are being used, no. Before I put anything in my stereo system, I want to know _EXACTLY_ what it does. To me, the lack of specific info appears to be a marketing decision. Vagueness spawns conjecture, which become facts once repeated often enough, whether they are actually facts or not. Marketing 101 says the fewer facts actually given, the better the marketing campaign. the psychology is that the more people understand something, the less impressed they are. Don't get me wrong, I believe the MultEQ is a powerful and sophisticated piece of equipment, but I'll never own one until they explain what it does.

Oh, and since physics haven't actually been changed, there is still no way to equalize a system for _EVERY_ seat in the theater. Pfff :nerd:


----------



## JohnM

aNomad said:


> My guess would be the actual number of taps varies depending upon the frequency and Q of the stage. I still don't know how many _FILTERS_ are used per channel.


One, but that does not mean it is equivalent to a single IIR biquad (aka parametric EQ filter). In an FIR filter the tap values are changed to create the desired response shape across the whole bandwidth of the filter, the number of taps is chosen for the required low frequency resolution and transition bandwidths (roughly speaking, how fast the frequency response changes). The Audyssey filters are not, strictly speaking, FIR, as they use a structure called warped FIR that introduces feedback paths between each tap so the impulse response is no longer finite. That is done because the warped structure allows the filter's resolution to vary with frequency, so low frequency resolution can be increased (and high frequency resolution reduced) to give more accurate control at low frequencies than the filter length would allow in a true FIR structure - the length reduction can be a factor of 10 or more, which is fortunate as otherwise the filter lengths for effective low frequency control would be so long that the EQ unit would have a very significant time delay, with consequent audio/video alignment problems.


----------



## Lordoftherings

eugovector said:


> AFAIK = As Far As I Know


Yep, thanks Marshall, Kal just fill me in. Still appreciate though.

By the way, how's things these days? Everythings is sounds? :teenieyes:

Something new and exciting? New stereo? New girlfriend? Wheater's good? :sn:

Any thoughts on the AS-EQ1? Or you still holding on to that 705? :yes:

Bob


----------



## Lordoftherings

Still need to practice my skills at mutiquoting.


----------



## Lordoftherings

Hi Bill,

Sorry for this mess. But it is in response to your multiquote post just above. 

*Not at all, I just know what I read so far and what comes from my receiver.
Hey, how many people live on the earth now? That's how much different beliefs you have.

*Yep, you are right. 

*So, you won't buy Anthem products neither? And Yamaha, you must be a fan. Pioneer, I bet you are too.
Marantz, nay, it's got some Audyssey too. No Denon, no Onkyo/Integra, no NAD...

*No, but you can pinpoint a good average of the main area.


So, what's good in your opinion? (Best type of room EQ system.)

Bob


----------



## Lordoftherings

JohnM said:


> One, but that does not mean it is equivalent to a single IIR biquad (aka parametric EQ filter). In an FIR filter the tap values are changed to create the desired response shape across the whole bandwidth of the filter, the number of taps is chosen for the required low frequency resolution and transition bandwidths (roughly speaking, how fast the frequency response changes). The Audyssey filters are not, strictly speaking, FIR, as they use a structure called warped FIR that introduces feedback paths between each tap so the impulse response is no longer finite. That is done because the warped structure allows the filter's resolution to vary with frequency, so low frequency resolution can be increased (and high frequency resolution reduced) to give more accurate control at low frequencies than the filter length would allow in a true FIR structure - the length reduction can be a factor of 10 or more, which is fortunate as otherwise the filter lengths for effective low frequency control would be so long that the EQ unit would have a very significant time delay, with consequent audio/video alignment problems.


Quite impressive explanation John. It is beyond my understanding for the most part.
I think that I need some adjustment to make in the filtration business.
Finite or Infinite Impulse Response filters, just have to put them at their right place and accept it as a logical fact.
But it seems to be more complex than this...

Any good readings with links perhaps?

Any commentary on ARC digital Room EQ system and it's functionment?

Best regards,

Bob


----------



## Patrick Nevin

Hi,

Long time reader here. I have a Yamaha RX-V 2700 and I am wondering since I can reset the sub EQ to flat, do I need to do the the entire YPAO setup when I get the ASEQ1? Also what mode should I use to disable the bass management?

Thanks
Patrick


----------



## Patrick Nevin

^


----------



## JohnM

Lordoftherings said:


> Any good readings with links perhaps?


On the Equalisation of loudspeakers in closed rooms (1998)
Genelec Papers
Digital Room Correction Wiki


----------



## Rookie100fun

Hi everyone,

I finally got what I expected to have from AS-EQ1 so far. Although the curve is not perfect, the LFE effect I have now is way improved as compare to just relying on the AutoEQ function of my Denon AVP-A1HD.


----------



## eugovector

Well, life's piling up with some instability on the job front, but I'm hoping that in a month I'll have a new job, new timezone, same girlfriend, and lots of time to podcast. As for the AS-EQ1, you can be assured that there's one on my wishlist, but $$ and time are tight so the HT is one hold right now.

Some day, the AS-EQ1 will be mine (along with a 80-100" AT Screen, 1080p Projector, and some bass traps).




Lordoftherings said:


> Yep, thanks Marshall, Kal just fill me in. Still appreciate though.
> 
> By the way, how's things these days? Everythings is sounds? :teenieyes:
> 
> Something new and exciting? New stereo? New girlfriend? Wheater's good? :sn:
> 
> Any thoughts on the AS-EQ1? Or you still holding on to that 705? :yes:
> 
> Bob


----------



## Lordoftherings

JohnM said:


> On the Equalisation of loudspeakers in closed rooms (1998)
> Genelec Papers
> Digital Room Correction Wiki


Thank you very much so John, greatly appreciated. :T

Bob


----------



## Lordoftherings

eugovector said:


> Well, life's piling up with some instability on the job front, but I'm hoping that in a month I'll have a new job, new timezone, same girlfriend, and lots of time to podcast. As for the AS-EQ1, you can be assured that there's one on my wishlist, but $$ and time are tight so the HT is one hold right now.
> 
> Some day, the AS-EQ1 will be mine (along with a 80-100" AT Screen, 1080p Projector, and some bass traps).


Cool Marshall, nice to hear from you and I wish you well, may your dreams come through. :daydream:

Bob


----------



## Lordoftherings

Patrick Nevin said:


> Hi,
> 
> Long time reader here. I have a Yamaha RX-V 2700 and I am wondering since I can reset the sub EQ to flat, do I need to do the the entire YPAO setup when I get the ASEQ1? Also what mode should I use to disable the bass management?
> 
> Thanks
> Patrick


Hi Patrick,

I'm sure the instruction's manual coming with the AS-EQ1 will explain how to proceed in these matters.
You could probably download that manual, or find more details on the AS-EQ1 on line. :reading:

Bob


----------



## Doug McBride

Patrick Nevin said:


> Hi,
> 
> Long time reader here. I have a Yamaha RX-V 2700 and I am wondering since I can reset the sub EQ to flat, do I need to do the the entire YPAO setup when I get the AS-EQ1? Also what mode should I use to disable the bass management?
> 
> Thanks
> Patrick


Patrick - I'm not that familiar with the capabilities of the RX-V2700, however the intent of re-running any receiver Autoeq (like YPAO) with the AS-EQ1 is to fake the receiver into thinking the subwoofer is perfectly flat (which of course it isn't) so no EQ is applied to those frequencies leaving them to the AS-EQ1. If you've already run YPAO and it has EQed your Sub "flat", then there is already EQ being applied to those frequencies which need to be removed so both the Yammie and the AS-EQ1 aren't both applying EQ. So to answer your question, the answer is "yes, you should re-run your YPAO per the instructions in the AS-EQ1 manual". Just make sure you recheck your speaker settings and reset to small with the appropriate crossover if YPAO has set them to Large.

I took a quick look at the 2700 manual and on page 28 it seems as through there is no processing applied to the Multichannel inputs, hence to bass management so you should be OK. Also noted some more info on page 42 and 43 IIRC.

Cheers,

Doug


----------



## Patrick Nevin

Lordoftherings i was reading the manual last night and I wasn't clear on a couple of things.

Doug right now that EQ part of the sub YPAO is reading flat. The YPAO software has a feature where you can reset it to flat. I am just wondering because it is set to flat and I can reset it to flat if i can just skip the YPAO part. The Multi Channel input not having any bass management dose make sense because you can hook up an external decoder that could have bass management in it. I am going to search the manual tonight for more info.

I get the ASEQ1 tomorrow so hopefully i can play with it tomorrow night.


----------



## Doug McBride

Patrick Nevin said:


> Lordoftherings i was reading the manual last night and I wasn't clear on a couple of things.
> 
> Doug right now that EQ part of the sub YPAO is reading flat. The YPAO software has a feature where you can reset it to flat. I am just wondering because it is set to flat and I can reset it to flat if i can just skip the YPAO part. The Multi Channel input not having any bass management dose make sense because you can hook up an external decoder that could have bass management in it. I am going to search the manual tonight for more info.
> 
> I get the AS-EQ1 tomorrow so hopefully i can play with it tomorrow night.


Patrick - what we're trying to avoid is the situation where you are double EQing with the Yammie and the AS-EQ1. The YPAO setting of "flat" is one of three different ways it applies EQ settings if I read the manual correctly, which means it is EQing the lower frequencies that the AS-EQ1 should be responsible for. 

The only way you can get the Yammie not to apply EQ to those frequencies is to re-run the YPAO setup looped through the AS-EQ1 as described in the AS-EQ1 manual, or alternatively disable YPAO so no EQ is being applied. Of course if you disabled YPAO, it wouldn't be applying any EQ to your mains and surrounds if that is what you want.

Hope that makes sense.

Doug


----------



## Patrick Nevin

Doug McBride said:


> Patrick - what we're trying to avoid is the situation where you are double EQing with the Yammie and the AS-EQ1. The YPAO setting of "flat" is one of three different ways it applies EQ settings if I read the manual correctly, which means it is EQing the lower frequencies that the AS-EQ1 should be responsible for.
> 
> The only way you can get the Yammie not to apply EQ to those frequencies is to re-run the YPAO setup looped through the AS-EQ1 as described in the AS-EQ1 manual, or alternatively disable YPAO so no EQ is being applied. Of course if you disabled YPAO, it wouldn't be applying any EQ to your mains and surrounds if that is what you want.
> 
> Hope that makes sense
> 
> Doug


Doug,

I am going to have to re-eq the speakers anyway because I toed in my main speakers which is making the sound field and bass really good for now. In the auto setup there is options to setup the wiring (speaker polarity), distance, size, eq (which i choose natural over flat), and level. I know i am doing the EQ part of it but should I do any of the others that I listed? 

Thanks for the help

Patrick


----------



## oakboy37

Here are my graphs,

IT sounds absolutely brilliant!!

edit: I will try and get them up again...doh!!!


----------



## aNomad

Lordoftherings said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> Sorry for this mess. But it is in response to your multiquote post just above.


No problem buddy, I understand. Multiquoting is a bother for sure! I often use notepad, but end up having to edit significantly. I'm trying something new this time: copying and pasting end quote and beginning quote markers, that's why this whole post is only responding to your post, I'm not picking on you. 



Lordoftherings said:


> *Not at all, I just know what I read so far and what comes from my receiver.
> Hey, how many people live on the earth now? That's how much different beliefs you have.


Very true!



Lordoftherings said:


> *Yep, you are right.


Thanks :-D 



Lordoftherings said:


> *So, you won't buy Anthem products neither? And Yamaha, you must be a fan. Pioneer, I bet you are too.
> Marantz, nay, it's got some Audyssey too. No Denon, no Onkyo/Integra, no NAD...


Well, if I did, I wouldn't use the Audyssey component until they explained it better. I hate vodoo



Lordoftherings said:


> *No, but you can pinpoint a good average of the main area.


True, and I think that's the best anyone can do. I wish they would say that, but it's all marketing...



Lordoftherings said:


> So, what's good in your opinion? (Best type of room EQ system.)


I'm leaning toward the Neptune EQ. I get it, it's straightforward.



Lordoftherings said:


> Bob


Bill


----------



## Lordoftherings

Hi Bill,

Can you give me a link to the Neptune EQ, so I can learn more about your system for EQuing your room? :meter:fftopic2:

By the way, nice job with the multiquote feature. :T

Bob


----------



## Doug McBride

Patrick Nevin said:


> Doug,
> 
> I am going to have to re-eq the speakers anyway because I toed in my main speakers which is making the sound field and bass really good for now. In the auto setup there is options to setup the wiring (speaker polarity), distance, size, eq (which i choose natural over flat), and level. I know i am doing the EQ part of it but should I do any of the others that I listed?
> 
> Thanks for the help
> 
> Patrick


Patrick - I'd do them all. What I'd suggest you check after the Calibration run with the AS-EQ1 in-line is Speaker Size. Most AVR OEM systems are famous for setting speakers to Large. I'd suggest you set your speakers to small, and select a crossover that works well with the capabilities of your speakers.

Post your graphs after running SubEQ - it will be interesting to see how the AS-EQ1 does in your room.

Doug


----------



## Kal Rubinson

aNomad said:


> I'm leaning toward the Neptune EQ. I get it, it's straightforward.


It is a digital "graphic EQ" with fixed frequencies and fixed Q. Works well. My review is in press.

Kal


----------



## Lordoftherings

Kal Rubinson said:


> It is a digital "graphic EQ" with fixed frequencies and fixed Q. Works well. My review is in press.
> 
> Kal


Graphic EQ! Works well!

Your review Kal, at Stereophile, is it avail on line too?

Is it possible here at the Shack that you can include the link to Stereophile in your sig? Just like you did at AVS.

By the way Kal, I'm looking at these graphs of the prior page from these two fellows, are those real?
Are they truly representative of the actual measurement before and after AS-EQ1 SubEQ?
Because if they sound as good as they look (after), it must be simply amazingly great sounding sub low frequencies with a total control an pitch definition with the best thump in the cavity of your chest never achieved before! "Astounding" will be indeed the appropriate word.
Better than the AVP-A1 with Audyssey Pro?

Bob


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Lordoftherings said:


> Graphic EQ! Works well!
> 
> Your review Kal, at Stereophile, is it avail on line too?


The Neptune EQ review will be out in the July issue and will probably appear on line about 60 days after that.



> Is it possible here at the Shack that you can include the link to Stereophile in your sig? Just like you did at AVS.


Sure. www.stereophile.com/musicintheround



> By the way Kal, I'm looking at these graphs of the prior page from these two fellows, are those real?
> Are they truly representative of the actual measurement before and after AS-EQ1 SubEQ?
> Because if they sound as good as they look (after), it must be simply amazingly great sounding sub low frequencies with a total control an pitch definition with the best thump in the cavity of your chest never achieved before! "Astounding" will be indeed the appropriate word.


They are typical of all the Audyssey graphs which are smoothed, both the pre and the post. As such, I think they are more representative than detailed.



> Better than the AVP-A1 with Audyssey Pro?


Well, I haven't used the AVP-A1 at all but I have used Audyssey Pro with other equipment including the SEQ. Better? Dunno until I measure it.


----------



## JimP

Was it ever determined how much smoothing was applied to the graph?

For that matter, has anyone posted a REW graph of a smooth AS-EQ1 graph. I'd like to see what the uglies look like.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

JimP said:


> Was it ever determined how much smoothing was applied to the graph?


Not that I know of but it is pretty easy to do. One argument is that the smoothed graph is more representative of what we hear and that those with less understanding of the physics and psychophysics would be put off to see the remaining "warts."



> For that matter, has anyone posted a REW graph of a smooth AS-EQ1 graph. I'd like to see what the uglies look like.


The uglies would depend on the specific context and, in some cases, not exist postprocessing. The only uglies that matter are your own.


----------



## JimP

Kal Rubinson said:


> The uglies would depend on the specific context and, in some cases, not exist postprocessing. The only uglies that matter are your own.


I think I got lost in there somewhere. 

I'm just trying to find out if the graph infers a much higher degree of correction than is actually occuring. Granted, some peaks and dips won't matter, but I'd like to see for myself. 

Since we're on the topic, one of this forum regulars had an interesting writeup a while back where he felt that you should use 1/3rd octave smoothing to avoid problems caused by overcorrecting small dips/peaks.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

JimP said:


> I think I got lost in there somewhere.
> 
> I'm just trying to find out if the graph infers a much higher degree of correction than is actually occuring.


I believe so because the "before" curve is equally smoothed. Are either all-revealing? Probably not. Is it a good representation of what it is doing? To a great degree.



> Granted, some peaks and dips won't matter, but I'd like to see for myself.


Then you have to measure it independently with REW or other tool. 



> Since we're on the topic, one of this forum regulars had an interesting writeup a while back where he felt that you should use 1/3rd octave smoothing to avoid problems caused by overcorrecting small dips/peaks.


Not unreasonable.


----------



## Lordoftherings

Kal Rubinson said:


> The Neptune EQ review will be out in the July issue and will probably appear on line about 60 days after that.
> 
> Sure. www.stereophile.com/musicintheround
> 
> They are typical of all the Audyssey graphs which are smoothed, both the pre and the post. As such, I think they are more representative than detailed.
> 
> Well, I haven't used the AVP-A1 at all but I have used Audyssey Pro with other equipment including the SEQ. Better? Dunno until I measure it.


Thank you very much so Kal for these very precise answers. :thankyou:

Yeah, I should have mentioned the Integra DTC-9.8 instead of the AVP-A1. :duh:
But the nice thing about the AVP-A1 is the three separate subwoofer's correction EQ. :fireworks1:

Bob


----------



## Patrick Nevin

Well I have a flat response from 100 to about 20hz. I did have a few problems like forgetting to plug in the USB to the computer to the ASEQ1 and turning on the auto calibration assistant. I noticed when i was in the YPAO to see the sub filters and it had 1 filter so i reset it to flat. I couldn't use the 0db pink noise but i did get the speaker and sub to read 75db. I used 7 positions which are all from my chair. It said to have my sub distance at 16 feet and to have the trim at -.5. I put the speaker from large to 80 hz. After that i took out the rat shack meter and use the pink noise from my receiver to set all of my speakers including the presence to 75db and the sub to 73db to account for the of the meter on bass. The main volume on the receiver for reference is -5. Bass is MUCH improved. There was no ringing and i can feel the bass more in the chest which is awesome. How hot is the ASEQ1 supposed to get because when i went to turn it off after a couple of hours of use it was hot. I don't want to ruin it because it is too hot. I can move to the top of the subwoofer so it dose not get hot. I am tempted to turn the subwoofer to face the room and see what type of response I get. I might try that when I am feeling better. Another question i have is the way I figure out how to figure out the phase with a 80 and 60hz crossover. I use a cd with those frequencies and i use the suboofer phase in the Yammie gui. i play the 80hz tone with the rat shack meter at my listening position. The sub has the phase at 0 so I have to have the phase in the receiver at reverse. When I do the 60 hz crossover it is normal phase. Do I need to do this with the ASEQ1?

Thanks
Patrick


----------



## CharlieU

I bought the AS-EQ1 so I could bring my PC+ 20-39, which has been loafing hooked up to my computer, down to my HT setup to join my PC 13 Ultra. I'm using a 16Hz tune on the PC+ and 15Hz tune on the Ultra. My receiver is a Pioneer SC-07.

Since all my gear is squeezed into a pretty compact area, I knew this process was going to be a nightmare. I was right, but I still stuck to it moving the connection around making sure all my speakers were at 75db. After the level matching, it was a piece of cake. Move the tripod, click the button. I did 10 positions, 2 in each outboard seat and 6 in my primary seat.

After I put away all the miscellaneous pieces and attached the faceplate, I sat down to give a listen to some music and see what had changed. The first thing I noticed is that two subs are better than one. It just seems to even out the bass (equal pressure in each ear) better. Next I noticed that my mids were clearer, more open. I threw in the Mudbone - Fresh Mud CD which is a high quality recording with excellent bass. This one really shined as the vocals and instruments separated and created a surround effect while the bass line kept pumping. For music, I give the AS-EQ1 two thumbs up.

Next I moved on to movies. I noticed that the impact didn't seem as great as before when I was just using the Ultra. I can't say that I heard more bass frequencies as I had the Ultra pretty well tuned in the first place. My favorite test is the space craft landing and explosion in Star Wars Episode 2. The pounding on my chest was less than I've experienced before. On a positive note, when hopping from seat to seat, the difference in bass was undetectable by me. It appears that the AS-EQ1 does the job of getting bass right at more than one position. So for movies, the jury is still out.

My graphs are below. (I think. This is my first time trying this.) To me, it looks like I started out in pretty good conditon.


----------



## Lordoftherings

Hi Charlie,

This is astonishingly a perfect result! :unbelievable:

You must be very happy with the Sound too. :jiggy:

Bob


----------



## Ed Mullen

CharlieU said:


> I bought the AS-EQ1 so I could bring my PC+ 20-39, which has been loafing hooked up to my computer, down to my HT setup to join my PC 13 Ultra. I'm using a 16Hz tune on the PC+ and 15Hz tune on the Ultra. My receiver is a Pioneer SC-07.
> 
> Since all my gear is squeezed into a pretty compact area, I knew this process was going to be a nightmare. I was right, but I still stuck to it moving the connection around making sure all my speakers were at 75db. After the level matching, it was a piece of cake. Move the tripod, click the button. I did 10 positions, 2 in each outboard seat and 6 in my primary seat.
> 
> After I put away all the miscellaneous pieces and attached the faceplate, I sat down to give a listen to some music and see what had changed. The first thing I noticed is that two subs are better than one. It just seems to even out the bass (equal pressure in each ear) better. Next I noticed that my mids were clearer, more open. I threw in the Mudbone - Fresh Mud CD which is a high quality recording with excellent bass. This one really shined as the vocals and instruments separated and created a surround effect while the bass line kept pumping. For music, I give the AS-EQ1 two thumbs up.
> 
> Next I moved on to movies. I noticed that the impact didn't seem as great as before when I was just using the Ultra. I can't say that I heard more bass frequencies as I had the Ultra pretty well tuned in the first place. My favorite test is the space craft landing and explosion in Star Wars Episode 2. The pounding on my chest was less than I've experienced before. On a positive note, when hopping from seat to seat, the difference in bass was undetectable by me. It appears that the AS-EQ1 does the job of getting bass right at more than one position. So for movies, the jury is still out.
> 
> My graphs are below. (I think. This is my first time trying this.) To me, it looks like I started out in pretty good conditon.



I assume the 20-39 PC-Plus and the PC13-Ultra are non-colocated? 

If it's not too much trouble, place the two subwoofers side-by-side, set the phase to 0 on both, individually calibrate them to the same SPL using a bass test tone, and then play the test tone with both subs running. I want to make sure the two subs have the same absolute polarity before further troubleshooting your perceived loss of impact.

It could also be that the AS-EQ1 simply scrubbed off a peak in the 25-40 Hz region and the bass response is now more accurate than before (albeit with less artificial slam/impact), but let's address the subwoofer polarity issue first.


----------



## Ed Mullen

Patrick Nevin said:


> Well I have a flat response from 100 to about 20hz. I did have a few problems like forgetting to plug in the USB to the computer to the ASEQ1 and turning on the auto calibration assistant. I noticed when i was in the YPAO to see the sub filters and it had 1 filter so i reset it to flat. I couldn't use the 0db pink noise but i did get the speaker and sub to read 75db. I used 7 positions which are all from my chair. It said to have my sub distance at 16 feet and to have the trim at -.5. I put the speaker from large to 80 hz. After that i took out the rat shack meter and use the pink noise from my receiver to set all of my speakers including the presence to 75db and the sub to 73db to account for the of the meter on bass. The main volume on the receiver for reference is -5. Bass is MUCH improved. There was no ringing and i can feel the bass more in the chest which is awesome. How hot is the ASEQ1 supposed to get because when i went to turn it off after a couple of hours of use it was hot. I don't want to ruin it because it is too hot. I can move to the top of the subwoofer so it dose not get hot. I am tempted to turn the subwoofer to face the room and see what type of response I get. I might try that when I am feeling better. Another question i have is the way I figure out how to figure out the phase with a 80 and 60hz crossover. I use a cd with those frequencies and i use the suboofer phase in the Yammie gui. i play the 80hz tone with the rat shack meter at my listening position. The sub has the phase at 0 so I have to have the phase in the receiver at reverse. When I do the 60 hz crossover it is normal phase. Do I need to do this with the ASEQ1?
> 
> Thanks
> Patrick


In my experience, the AS-EQ1 runs quite cool - I've had one idling in my office for days and it's cool to the touch. It is designed to be left on for extended periods of time without harm.

The phase control on the subwoofer should be left at 0 when setting up the AS-EQ1. It will provide you with the correct subwoofer distance to input in the AVR, which is a combination of the acoustic distance and the latency of the AS-EQ1 (about 8.5 ms). Your AVR should provide you with the correct loudspeaker distances during the auto-set-up routine. 

The time alignment of the speakers and the subwoofer should then be fairly close. Dialing in more phase at the subwoofer plate amp without independently verifying the effect on the FR is not advised. 

The speaker/sub crossover formed by your AVR at the selected crossover frequency is comprised of a 2nd order high pass and 4th order low pass. Whether or not this crossover is actually perfectly phase correct for any selected crossover frequency is dependent on the in-room FR of the speaker and subwoofer, but my guess would be not. 

This type of AVR crossover network stems from the THX days, where a sealed speaker with an 80 Hz roll-off was specified. The idea was that cascading a 2nd order high pass over the acoustical 2nd order roll-off resulted in a 4th order high pass, which would then match the 4th order low pass of the subwoofer, resulting in a phase-correct crossover. The use of anything but a sealed speaker with an 80 Hz roll-off pretty much upsets the apple cart, and if your speakers are vented with varying F3 points, then your chances of obtaining a perfectly phase-correct crossover with the subwoofer at any given crossover frequency are pretty slim. 

So my advice from a practical real-world standpoint is to set all your speaker and subwoofer distances correctly in the AVR, set all your speakers to Small, and then select a crossover frequency (or frequencies if your AVR has the capability to provide individual crossover frequencies for each channel) which protects each speaker from being overdriven in the bass regions.


----------



## JimP

Ed, 

I've got a B&K Ref 50 pre/pro which allows different slopes setting for the mains to match up with the sub. What would you recommend for the PB Ultra 13 if you're only using one of those subs. This is without your equalizer.


----------



## Ed Mullen

JimP said:


> Ed,
> 
> I've got a B&K Ref 50 pre/pro which allows different slopes setting for the mains to match up with the sub. What would you recommend for the PB Ultra 13 if you're only using one of those subs. This is without your equalizer.


It's your speaker and the intended application (music/movies and playback level) which will dictate the best slopes and crossover to use in the Ref 50. Give us a little background on the rest of your system and we'll take it from there.


----------



## CharlieU

Ed Mullen said:


> I assume the 20-39 PC-Plus and the PC13-Ultra are non-colocated?
> 
> If it's not too much trouble, place the two subwoofers side-by-side, set the phase to 0 on both, individually calibrate them to the same SPL using a bass test tone, and then play the test tone with both subs running. I want to make sure the two subs have the same absolute polarity before further troubleshooting your perceived loss of impact.
> 
> It could also be that the AS-EQ1 simply scrubbed off a peak in the 25-40 Hz region and the bass response is now more accurate than before (albeit with less artificial slam/impact), but let's address the subwoofer polarity issue first.


You are correct, the subs are not colocated. I have them sitting left and right of my monitor. The Ultra is in the same spot as it was pre-AS-EQ1 and the 20-39 is too close to a corner. I wasn't going to make it easy on the AS-EQ1. :bigsmile:

The phase on both subs is set to zero. I learned from our previous exchange to never doubt the master, so I followed instructions to a "T". 

You may be right about it reducing a peak that gave me the impact before. That's the reason I want to live with this a bit more. I am thrilled with what it did for music and impressed with the way it took care of bass in my non-sweet seats. If it bothers me enough, I'll give your idea a shot. Thanks for the suggestions.


----------



## Ed Mullen

CharlieU said:


> You are correct, the subs are not colocated. I have them sitting left and right of my monitor. The Ultra is in the same spot as it was pre-AS-EQ1 and the 20-39 is too close to a corner. I wasn't going to make it easy on the AS-EQ1. :bigsmile:
> 
> The phase on both subs is set to zero. I learned from our previous exchange to never doubt the master, so I followed instructions to a "T".
> 
> You may be right about it reducing a peak that gave me the impact before. That's the reason I want to live with this a bit more. I am thrilled with what it did for music and impressed with the way it took care of bass in my non-sweet seats. If it bothers me enough, I'll give your idea a shot. Thanks for the suggestions.



I would absolutely check the absolute polarity of both subwoofers before attempting to acclimate your ears to the system. 

Even if you skip calibrating both subwoofers to the same level, it will still be painfully obvious if they are reverse polarity when placed side-by-side and fed the same rumble tone. The SPL will tank noticeably and they will fight against each other. Conversely, if the SPL jumps noticeably (it would be +6 dB max if the two subs were the same SPL/model/tune), then you are OK and put the PC+ back and carry on. 

If they are reverse polarity for some reason, switch the leads on the PC+ woofer, not the Ultra. Contact in TS for the procedure on how to safely remove the woof.


----------



## CharlieU

Lordoftherings said:


> Hi Charlie,
> 
> This is astonishingly a perfect result! :unbelievable:
> 
> You must be very happy with the Sound too. :jiggy:
> 
> Bob


I was pretty amazed when I looked at the graph considering that I put the 20-39 in a pretty terrible location. The biggest difference is how it cleaned up the overall sound of my system. Everything is clearer now, much more detail in the mid frequencies.


----------



## JimP

Ed Mullen said:


> It's your speaker and the intended application (music/movies and playback level) which will dictate the best slopes and crossover to use in the Ref 50. Give us a little background on the rest of your system and we'll take it from there.


Atlantic Technology 8200 system. I'm also using their front mains as side and back surrounds.


----------



## CharlieU

Ed Mullen said:


> I would absolutely check the absolute polarity of both subwoofers before attempting to acclimate your ears to the system.
> 
> Even if you skip calibrating both subwoofers to the same level, it will still be painfully obvious if they are reverse polarity when placed side-by-side and fed the same rumble tone. The SPL will tank noticeably and they will fight against each other. Conversely, if the SPL jumps noticeably (it would be +6 dB max if the two subs were the same SPL/model/tune), then you are OK and put the PC+ back and carry on.
> 
> If they are reverse polarity for some reason, switch the leads on the PC+ woofer, not the Ultra. Contact in TS for the procedure on how to safely remove the woof.


I'll give this a try. Thanks.


----------



## Lordoftherings

CharlieU said:


> I was pretty amazed when I looked at the graph considering that I put the 20-39 in a pretty terrible location. The biggest difference is how it cleaned up the overall sound of my system. Everything is clearer now, much more detail in the mid frequencies.


Thanks Charlie for the feedback.

I am following this with great interest, and I'm almost ready to pull the trigger. :yes:
At this price and performance, the AS-EQ1 seems to be a no-brainer. :shh:
And it is perfect for my two 15" subs. :R

Regards,

Bob


----------



## Patrick Nevin

Ed Mullen said:


> In my experience, the AS-EQ1 runs quite cool - I've had one idling in my office for days and it's cool to the touch. It is designed to be left on for extended periods of time without harm.
> 
> The phase control on the subwoofer should be left at 0 when setting up the AS-EQ1. It will provide you with the correct subwoofer distance to input in the AVR, which is a combination of the acoustic distance and the latency of the AS-EQ1 (about 8.5 ms). Your AVR should provide you with the correct loudspeaker distances during the auto-set-up routine.
> 
> The time alignment of the speakers and the subwoofer should then be fairly close. Dialing in more phase at the subwoofer plate amp without independently verifying the effect on the FR is not advised.
> 
> The speaker/sub crossover formed by your AVR at the selected crossover frequency is comprised of a 2nd order high pass and 4th order low pass. Whether or not this crossover is actually perfectly phase correct for any selected crossover frequency is dependent on the in-room FR of the speaker and subwoofer, but my guess would be not.
> 
> This type of AVR crossover network stems from the THX days, where a sealed speaker with an 80 Hz roll-off was specified. The idea was that cascading a 2nd order high pass over the acoustical 2nd order roll-off resulted in a 4th order high pass, which would then match the 4th order low pass of the subwoofer, resulting in a phase-correct crossover. The use of anything but a sealed speaker with an 80 Hz roll-off pretty much upsets the apple cart, and if your speakers are vented with varying F3 points, then your chances of obtaining a perfectly phase-correct crossover with the subwoofer at any given crossover frequency are pretty slim.
> 
> So my advice from a practical real-world standpoint is to set all your speaker and subwoofer distances correctly in the AVR, set all your speakers to Small, and then select a crossover frequency (or frequencies if your AVR has the capability to provide individual crossover frequencies for each channel) which protects each speaker from being overdriven in the bass regions.


Ed,

The ASEQ1 is running much cooler now. Also I said that I am running the sub at 16 feet away and that is because the software said to set it at 16.3 feet. Should I set the sub at 16 and a half feet away. Thanks for the crossover information.

Thanks
Patrick


----------



## Lordoftherings

Patrick Nevin said:


> Ed,
> 
> The ASEQ1 is running much cooler now. Also I said that I am running the sub at 16 feet away and that is because the software said to set it at 16.3 feet. Should I set the sub at 16 and a half feet away. Thanks for the crossover information.
> 
> Thanks
> Patrick


This is very impressive Patrick. The distance is dead on, because you have to take into consideration that the actual distance from your sub, start from the voice coil of the driver.
When you measure the distance from a big driver like a sub, you always add about 4 inches more to take account of the distance from the baffle of the driver to the dust cap and even the voice coil. If you can set it at 16.3 feet, it is right on target. If not, 16.5 feet should be fine too, when you take into consideration the distance from your two ears to the center of your head. And a sub with a 15" or 18" driver, you can add and additional inch or so.
I think that Ed will be able to confirm this.

So, it is exactly accurate! Quite amazing indeed.

Bob


----------



## Patrick Nevin

Lordoftherings said:


> This is very impressive Patrick. The distance is dead on, because you have to take in consideration that the actual distance from your sub start from the voice coil of the driver.
> When you measure the distance from a big driver like a sub, you always add about 4 inches more to take account of the distance from the baffle of the driver to the dust cap and even the voice coil.
> 
> So, it is exactly accurate! Quite amazing indeed.
> 
> Bob


Yes Bob it is really amazing. I just have to figure out how to post my results on here. Any ideas?

Thanks
Patrick


----------



## Patrick Nevin

Results

Before








After


----------



## Lordoftherings

Patrick Nevin said:


> Yes Bob it is really amazing. I just have to figure out how to post my results on here. Any ideas?
> 
> Thanks
> Patrick


Sorry Patrick, I'm not good with these things myself.
But I'm sure someone else will be able to help you out.

Ed or Kal perhaps.

Cheers,

Bob


----------



## Patrick Nevin

Bob I did get it figured out. Look at the bottom of page 11


----------



## JimP

Patrick Nevin said:


> Ed,
> 
> The ASEQ1 is running much cooler now. Also I said that I am running the sub at 16 feet away and that is because the software said to set it at 16.3 feet. Should I set the sub at 16 and a half feet away. Thanks for the crossover information.
> 
> Thanks
> Patrick


I'm not sure that I'm reading your post correctly, but if you're saying that you should physically move your subwoofer box to a position 16 feet away, then you're misreading the instructions. What it is telling you to do is to change the subwoofer distance in your receiver's setup menu to read 16.3 feet.


----------



## Patrick Nevin

JimP said:


> I'm not sure that I'm reading your post correctly, but if you're saying that you should physically move your subwoofer box to a position 16 feet away, then you're misreading the instructions. What it is telling you to do is to change the subwoofer distance in your receiver's setup menu to read 16.3 feet.


Hi Jim,

I have the distance in the receiver at 16 feet. I am just wondering if I should just make the distance in the receiver at 16 or 16 and a half feet away in the receiver with the reading at 16.3 feet.

Thanks
Patrick


----------



## JimP

Patrick,

If your receiver allows it, while playing content change the sub distance from 16 to 16.5 and pick the one that sounds the best.


----------



## Patrick Nevin

JimP said:


> Patrick,
> 
> If your receiver allows it, while playing content change the sub distance from 16 to 16.5 and pick the one that sounds the best.


Jim,

I am currently running at 16.5 feet and I am really liking it. I think this Saturday night I am going to change the position of the sub so the woofer and port face the room instead of the wall. I am curious to see what type of response and sound I get. With the sub facing the room.

Thanks
Patrick


----------



## Lordoftherings

Patrick Nevin said:


> Bob I did get it figured out. Look at the bottom of page 11


:cowboy: Yes, I saw it, great. Now you just have to diminish the size of the graph "Before", so it match the size of the graph "After". :shh:

Hey Patrick, with some experience you'll become an expert at graphic design reproduction. :wow: 

Good job,

Bob


----------



## Lordoftherings

Patrick Nevin said:


> Jim,
> 
> I am currently running at 16.5 feet and I am really liking it. I think this Saturday night I am going to change the position of the sub so the woofer and port face the room instead of the wall. I am curious to see what type of response and sound I get. With the sub facing the room.
> 
> Thanks
> Patrick


Don't forget to rerun the AS-AQ1 for your new Sub small position change. :yes: 
The distance should be very similar though, perhaps only a few inches closer.

Bob


----------



## Patrick Nevin

Lordoftherings said:


> Don't forget to rerun the AS-AQ1 for your new Sub small position change. :yes:
> The distance should be very similar though, perhaps only a few inches closer.
> 
> Bob


Hi Bob,

I will definitely remeasure the sub facing the room instead of the wall. I hope it gives me a better response. If it doesn't I will turn it back facing the wall and remeasure it. I am excited to see the results.

Patrick


----------



## Lordoftherings

Patrick Nevin said:


> Hi Bob,
> 
> I will definitely remeasure the sub facing the room instead of the wall. I hope it gives me a better response. If it doesn't I will turn it back facing the wall and remeasure it. I am excited to see the results.
> 
> Patrick


Great Patrick. I'm also curious to see the results. I ponder... onder: But I think, you'll be pleased.

Bob


----------



## Ed Mullen

The recommended subwoofer distance is a combination of the acoustic distance plus the electrical latency of the AS-EQ1 (about 8.5 ms). 

So if the recommended subwoofer distance is about 16.5 feet, the subwoofer is probably about 8 feet away from the measurement location.


----------



## Ed Mullen

JimP said:


> Atlantic Technology 8200 system. I'm also using their front mains as side and back surrounds.


All of your speakers are sealed with a 60 Hz extension rating. So use a 2nd order high pass, a 4th order low pass, and a crossover frequency of 60 Hz.


----------



## JimP

Ed Mullen said:


> All of your speakers are sealed with a 60 Hz extension rating. So use a 2nd order high pass, a 4th order low pass, and a crossover frequency of 60 Hz.


Thanks


----------



## stevefish69

Ed Mullen said:


> All of your speakers are sealed with a 60 Hz extension rating. So use a 2nd order high pass, a 4th order low pass, and a crossover frequency of 60 Hz.


Ed - Did you have any opinions on the crossover setting for my Kef Reference 3.2's - They are rated flat to 40Hz and LF Corner -6 dB 36 Hz 

Many thanks

Steve


----------



## CharlieU

Ed Mullen said:


> I would absolutely check the absolute polarity of both subwoofers before attempting to acclimate your ears to the system.
> 
> Even if you skip calibrating both subwoofers to the same level, it will still be painfully obvious if they are reverse polarity when placed side-by-side and fed the same rumble tone. The SPL will tank noticeably and they will fight against each other. Conversely, if the SPL jumps noticeably (it would be +6 dB max if the two subs were the same SPL/model/tune), then you are OK and put the PC+ back and carry on.
> 
> If they are reverse polarity for some reason, switch the leads on the PC+ woofer, not the Ultra. Contact in TS for the procedure on how to safely remove the woof.


Mystery solved: "Turn up the volume stupid!"

I broke out the Radio Shack meter to check if the subs were wired right. They were. Since I had the meter out and mounted in my listening position, I figured I would take some measurements after I put everything back the way it was. A couple of weeks ago, I spent some time with my Oppo BDP 83 trying to see if there was a difference between outputting bitstream or LPCM to my receiver. There wasn't. I had the meter out to make sure I wasn't influenced by the volume.

This time I cranked up the volume up to the same SPL I used for my Oppo tests and all of a sudden, the bass impact was back. When I looked at the volume setting on the receiver, I realized that it was higher than I've been listening at after I installed the AS-EQ1. Normally I adjust my volume until I can hear the dialog clearly and don't set a specific volume on the receiver. With the AS-EQ1 cleaning up my mid-range, I didn't really need to crank it up as much to hear the dialog. I know now to turn it up a few more notches.:doh:

After living with the AS-EQ1 for a couple of days, I've had some time to reflect on what $700 bought me. Afterall, it's something I spent about an hour with and probably won't touch again for a very long time. The truth is, the $700 is a fraction of what I have spent on my speakers and components. I can't think of any component that I could have spent more on or added to my system that would have improved the sound quality as much as the AS-EQ1. If you don't have bass traps and acoustic panels, spend your money there first. Afterwards, buy the AS-EQ1 to extract every last bit of sound your system is capable of.


----------



## Ed Mullen

CharlieU said:


> Mystery solved: "Turn up the volume stupid!"
> 
> I broke out the Radio Shack meter to check if the subs were wired right. They were. Since I had the meter out and mounted in my listening position, I figured I would take some measurements after I put everything back the way it was. A couple of weeks ago, I spent some time with my Oppo BDP 83 trying to see if there was a difference between outputting bitstream or LPCM to my receiver. There wasn't. I had the meter out to make sure I wasn't influenced by the volume.
> 
> This time I cranked up the volume up to the same SPL I used for my Oppo tests and all of a sudden, the bass impact was back. When I looked at the volume setting on the receiver, I realized that it was higher than I've been listening at after I installed the AS-EQ1. Normally I adjust my volume until I can hear the dialog clearly and don't set a specific volume on the receiver. With the AS-EQ1 cleaning up my mid-range, I didn't really need to crank it up as much to hear the dialog. I know now to turn it up a few more notches.:doh:
> 
> After living with the AS-EQ1 for a couple of days, I've had some time to reflect on what $700 bought me. Afterall, it's something I spent about an hour with and probably won't touch again for a very long time. The truth is, the $700 is a fraction of what I have spent on my speakers and components. I can't think of any component that I could have spent more on or added to my system that would have improved the sound quality as much as the AS-EQ1. If you don't have bass traps and acoustic panels, spend your money there first. Afterwards, buy the AS-EQ1 to extract every last bit of sound your system is capable of.


Glad to hear the subs were the same polarity. :T

The absolute SPL of the AS-EQ1 mic and SubEQ application will vary somewhat compared to other references like your SPL meter and AVR auto-EQ mic. So use the AS-EQ1 to level match the speakers and subwoofer, and then run the EQ routine. 

If you discover that the overall playback level is a few dB different than it was previously for a given master volume setting, then you have two options: 1) make a global trim level adjustment to all channels to restore your previous reference level, or 2) simply adjust your master volume higher/lower to duplicate what you had before. Obviously #2 is easier and faster, as you discovered. 

While calibrating to a known reference level is ingrained into our HT psyche, the lack of industry standardized encoding/mastering levels for DVDs pretty much makes reference level calibration a waste of time. If every DVD and every codec played at exactly the same volume, then sure - the concept has merit. But they don't - not even close - so we're constantly adjusting our master volume to compensate. In the end, it's far more important to level match than it is to calibrate to a reference level SPL - so that's what we recommend to customers and then advise they simply select option #2 above and adjust the master volume to taste for each DVD.

The AS-EQ1 was designed for users like you (and you represent the vast majority of our core demographic). It provides the best possible bass sound quality with a minimum of learning curve or user tweaking. That saves money, time, and aggravation and it lets the enthusiast get back to enjoying the hobby of music/movies instead of spending countless hours tweaking/measuring/tweaking/measuring. When you compare the price of the AS-EQ1 against peace of mind and your new found free time, it becomes rather reasonable indeed. And your comments have already been echoed by hundreds of users at all corners of the globe.


----------



## Fatawan

Ed Mullen said:


> The AS-EQ1 was designed for users like you (and you represent the vast majority of our core demographic). It provides the best possible bass sound quality with a minimum of learning curve or user tweaking. That saves money, time, and aggravation and it lets the enthusiast get back to enjoying the hobby of music/movies instead of spending countless hours tweaking/measuring/tweaking/measuring. When you compare the price of the AS-EQ1 against peace of mind and your new found free time, it becomes rather reasonable indeed. And your comments have already been echoed by hundreds of users at all corners of the globe.


As one who has spent countless hours tweaking/measuring/listening/tweaking, and thinking I had gotten a great result, let me add that not only does the AS-EQ1 make it easy to EQ your subs, it also sounds far better than anything I had achieved previously with REW and a DCX2496. Night and day.


----------



## Lordoftherings

Ed Mullen said:


> The recommended subwoofer distance is a combination of the acoustic distance plus the electrical latency of the AS-EQ1 (about 8.5 ms).
> 
> So if the recommended subwoofer distance is about 16.5 feet, the subwoofer is probably about 8 feet away from the measurement location.


Ahhh... Thank you for the correction. Now, that makes more sense. But still, that much of a delay? 

Bob


----------



## Lordoftherings

Ed Mullen said:


> The AS-EQ1 was designed for users like you (and you represent the vast majority of our core demographic). It provides the best possible bass sound quality with a minimum of learning curve or user tweaking. That saves money, time, and aggravation and it lets the enthusiast get back to enjoying the hobby of music/movies instead of spending countless hours tweaking/measuring/tweaking/measuring. When you compare the price of the AS-EQ1 against peace of mind and your new found free time, it becomes rather reasonable indeed. And your comments have already been echoed by hundreds of users at all corners of the globe.


:wow: Hey Ed, is there a sale coming soon on this? Summer sale perhaps. :bigsmile:

But seriously, I also have two big subs, and it seems to be the ideal solution. 

I really appreciate your time and effort to explain very precisely to all members and owners here.
It is done very professionally. And only a true PRO can do this the way you do. :T

Thank you,

Bob


----------



## spearmint

My apologies if this has been answered before, I have to admit I’ve not read this entire thread.

I’ve just ordered one of these units, but am wondering if the outputs are muted during power on/off?


----------



## Gard

I'm setting up a new HT room with MTS/MCS, PC-Ultra/EQ1 and Yamaha Z7. Any tips on the setup. Should I start with the normal 80hz x-over or would a 60hz or 40hz be better.


----------



## Doug McBride

Gard said:


> I'm setting up a new HT room with MTS/MCS, PC-Ultra/EQ1 and Yamaha Z7. Any tips on the setup. Should I start with the normal 80hz x-over or would a 60hz or 40hz be better.


Gard - if it were me, I'd set the x-over higher rather than lower and let the PCU + AS-EQ1 do their thing at the low end. You can always experiement and see what sounds right to you in your room.

Cheers,

Doug


----------



## malikarshad

JimP said:


> Was it ever determined how much smoothing was applied to the graph?
> 
> For that matter, has anyone posted a REW graph of a smooth AS-EQ1 graph. I'd like to see what the uglies look like.


Here is the REW graph of before (Blue line) and after (green line) AS-EQ1 calibration. The graph is smoothen to 1/3 octave.
I have Integra DTC-9.8 and single SVS PB2+(dual 12 woofers) sub.
One thing in the graph that I want to understand is the dip at about 35Hz in the after graph :dunno:.


So far i'm pleased with the result :T.

One think I'm not clear is when EQing with AS-EQ1 should the Processer Audyssey EQ be turned on or off:scratch:. I left it on.


----------



## JimP

Is blue the before as it looks more like it would be the after. On the Audyssey generated graph, did it show the after as being perfectly flat?

Also, if you're using a 80hz crossover, reverse the polarity of your subwoofer. It looks like its cancelling the mains at the crossover region. Then rerun Audyssey.


----------



## malikarshad

JimP said:


> Is blue the before as it looks more like it would be the after. On the Audyssey generated graph, did it show the after as being perfectly flat?
> 
> Also, if you're using a 80hz crossover, reverse the polarity of your subwoofer. It looks like its cancelling the mains at the crossover region. Then rerun Audyssey.


Yes the after graph by AS-EQ1 was prefectly flat. I'll post that graph later as I don't have access to that graph now. 

The before graph(blue-line) is without AS-EQ1 and using the processor built-in Audyssey MultEQ XT. I've also attached the graph (purple line) that shows the graph without any EQ.


I calibrated the system using MultEQ XT using the patch cable from AS-EQ1 to the processor. MultEQ XT gave a sub level of -1.0 db and distance of 6.4 ft. 
I modifed the sub level to 0 db before taking the measurements with AS-EQ1. Should the level be left at what MultEQ XT calibrated at:dunno:
Then I level matched all my speakers & sub(adjusted the gain) at 75db using SubEQ test tones. 
*I set the speakers to "Full Band" large.*
Then i calibrated the sub using AS-EQ1
I got a trim level of -4.1 and distance of 19.3 ft.

I thought the phase is automatically set by AS-EQ1:scratch: Do i need to do something different.


----------



## oddeophile

Hi, guys. I am new to the forum and just found out about this sub processor. It would help me immensely, being a bit hamfisted and not all that good with computers, if someone would be kind enough to give me a bit of advice on how easy and intuitive it was for them to use the AS-EQ1 software and work through the process. I have two JL Audio F113 subs I need desparately properly EQ in my system. I love them immensely but I never seem to be able to feel I have them fully and properly dialed in. Sound familiar?

Thanks to all and for your patience.

Oddeophile


----------



## stevefish69

I've posted this on AV-Forums where i normally hang out but thought i'd share me experience here too.

Well i've just had an interesting evening. I've always believed that the EQ1 has been setting my Sub channel too low from day 1. It's always told me to set the gain on the back of my Ultra to around 9am which i've done but i always sensed something was wrong. I could never understand how the EQ1 is channel matching the Sub and speakers and yet does not know how high the main channel is in relation to the Sub. All you normally do is adjust the gain on the Sub until it's 75db and then wind the master volume up or down to match.

Today i grabbed out the RS meter and checked and low and behold, the Sub channel appeared to be set around 10db low 

I'm not really a believer of the RS meter as it's un-calibrated and i just thought it must be playing up. Surely my state of the art EQ1 could not be that far out.

Whilst PM'ing Ed with my findings i had a bit of a brainwave. I disconnected the Sub from the EQ1 and hooked it into the back of the processor as you would if you were not using an EQ device. I then hooked the OUTPUT of the EQ1 to the 5.1 Bypass Sub Input on the Processor. This is on the same 5.1 bypass that i use for the front left channel. Both signals are now in relation to each other and move up and down together.

I set the master volume so that the Front left was reading 75db and then wound UP the gain on the back of the sub to 10am to get near to it and make remembering the setting easier. I still had to adjust the Sub trim up to +2db to get it exact.

I may have been missing something in the EQ1 manual but i think what i've done makes sense. I swapped all the cables back to normal, put on the THX intro on the Phantom menace and was nearly blown out of the seat. The Pod race scene was back to it's former glory but better with lush textured Bass that i've been missing for so long 

I can't believe that no one else has not spotted this problem too. Maybe it's in the manual and i was just being dim and stupid . I've mailed Ed my findings and hopefully he'll post here with some comments.


----------



## JimP

Robinhood

I'm just a bit suspect of that 80hz dip. If you have the ability on your sub(s) to reverse the polarity, try doing that and see what happens. Adjusting phase isn't the same thing. Some receivers also have a reverse polarity setting for the subwoofer.

The other possibility is that the speaker is wired backwards. Might want to recheck that.

It could also be room induced.


----------



## malikarshad

I don't have anything to do reverse the polarity of the sub. The Speakers are wired correctly Red goes to red and black goes to black.
One thing I'm unsure is setting the speakers to Small or Large. 
Its set to large before doing the sub EQ and then after the AS-EQ1 is done I set it to small by setting the crossover in the processor to 80hz. 
Although the MultEQ sets the speakers to large and i always set them at 80hz crossover after EQing them.
Do I have to set the crossover to 80hz before EQing it with AS-EQ1?


----------



## Doug McBride

oddeophile said:


> Hi, guys. I am new to the forum and just found out about this sub processor. It would help me immensely, being a bit hamfisted and not all that good with computers, if someone would be kind enough to give me a bit of advice on how easy and intuitive it was for them to use the AS-EQ1 software and work through the process. I have two JL Audio F113 subs I need desparately properly EQ in my system. I love them immensely but I never seem to be able to feel I have them fully and properly dialed in. Sound familiar?
> 
> Thanks to all and for your patience.
> 
> Oddeophile


From what I've read, most folks have found it very straightforward. You might consider downloading a copy of the manual, have a quick read, then post any specific questions.

http://www.svsound.com/manuals/aseq_1_operatormanual_rev1_1_lowres.pdf

Doug


----------



## Doug McBride

malikarshad said:


> Yes the after graph by AS-EQ1 was prefectly flat. I'll post that graph later as I don't have access to that graph now.
> 
> The before graph(blue-line) is without AS-EQ1 and using the processor built-in Audyssey MultEQ XT. I've also attached the graph (purple line) that shows the graph without any EQ.
> 
> 
> I calibrated the system using MultEQ XT using the patch cable from AS-EQ1 to the processor. MultEQ XT gave a sub level of -1.0 db and distance of 6.4 ft.
> I modifed the sub level to 0 db before taking the measurements with AS-EQ1. Should the level be left at what MultEQ XT calibrated at:dunno:
> Then I level matched all my speakers & sub(adjusted the gain) at 75db using SubEQ test tones.
> *I set the speakers to "Full Band" large.*
> Then i calibrated the sub using AS-EQ1
> I got a trim level of -4.1 and distance of 19.3 ft.
> 
> I thought the phase is automatically set by AS-EQ1:scratch: Do i need to do something different.


Just to clarify and also a few questions:

* When integrating the AS-EQ1 with your Integra, you should be using the Integra's Mic plugged in to the AS-EQ1 and the included patch cable from the AS-EQ1 to the Inegra's Mic input. Before running Audyssey on the Inegra, you should be at the SubEQ screen called "Auto EQ Assist" and have the "On" radio button selected. Sub trim and distance from this step are irrelevant since the results from SubEQ will be used in your Integra after measurements have been taken.

* Sub level in your Integra has no effect on the tones generated by the AS-EQ1 for the sub(s) since that tone is not routed through the AVR or pre/pro.

* When you level matched (now using the Mic included with the AS-EQ1), did you use a multichannel input (with any processing, if any, disabled) on your Integra and adjust the trim levels (not Master Volume) to 75dB? I understand from above you set the sub to 75dB using the gain on the sub.

* Per your previous post, you should have Audyssey in your Integra turned on when doing measurements with the AS-EQ1.

* Is your sub roughly 11 feet from where you originally (first measurement) place the AS-EQ1 Mic? The AS-EQ1 adds about 8.5ms of delay to the signal which adds about 8.5 feet to the distance.

* Trim level and distance should be entered in to your Integra as is, not as an offset from what was already there.

* Phase should be set to 0 before calibrating the sub.

Could you please post your before and after graphs from SUbEQ? You shouldn't be seeing that dip at 35Hz if your Before graphs looks the way you represent it in REW.

Thanks,

Doug


----------



## malikarshad

Doug McBride said:


> Could you please post your before and after graphs from SUbEQ? You shouldn't be seeing that dip at 35Hz if your Before graphs looks the way you represent it in REW.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Doug


Doug,
I've attached the PDF of before and after graph of SUB EQ. Surprisingly there is no dip at 35Hz there. It shows up only in REW Graph and i've smoothen the REW graph by 1/3 octave.
To answer your questions

I've used the correct mics for calibrating processor and AS-EQ1. The Auto-EQ Assist Radio button was turned on while calibrating using MultiEQ on the integra
After running MultiEQ on Integra I set the master volume to 0db before matching level using SubEQ.
I used the Multichannel input on the integra to level match the speakers at 75db. In fact I level matched all the speakers to 75db by manually switching the cable on integra to the relevant inputs. The sub was also level matched to 75db using SubEQ test tone by adusting the sub gain. The speaker were level matched using the integra trim level. The master volume was set to 0 db through out the level matching process.
My Question at this point is should the crossover be set to 80hz in the integra before Measuring the sub.
I used the Left channel that was set to Full Band in integra to measure the subwoofer. There was no processing enabled whatsoever on the multichannel input.
SubEQ calculated the trim level of -4.1 and distance of 19.3. The sub is about 11feet physically from the main listening position.
The Sub phase is set to 0. The sub crossover is disabled. The subsonic filter is set to 20 Hz. There are no ports plugged on the sub.

Given all this I want to understand why there is a dip at 35Hz in the REW graph. JimP suggested to reverse the polarity of sub in the processor but I don't have this option.

I'm happy with the result but I want to make sure I'm getting the best out of AS-EQ1.


----------



## CharlieU

stevefish69 said:


> I've posted this on AV-Forums where i normally hang out but thought i'd share me experience here too.
> 
> Well i've just had an interesting evening. I've always believed that the EQ1 has been setting my Sub channel too low from day 1. It's always told me to set the gain on the back of my Ultra to around 9am which i've done but i always sensed something was wrong. I could never understand how the EQ1 is channel matching the Sub and speakers and yet does not know how high the main channel is in relation to the Sub. All you normally do is adjust the gain on the Sub until it's 75db and then wind the master volume up or down to match.
> 
> Today i grabbed out the RS meter and checked and low and behold, the Sub channel appeared to be set around 10db low
> 
> I'm not really a believer of the RS meter as it's un-calibrated and i just thought it must be playing up. Surely my state of the art EQ1 could not be that far out.
> 
> Whilst PM'ing Ed with my findings i had a bit of a brainwave. I disconnected the Sub from the EQ1 and hooked it into the back of the processor as you would if you were not using an EQ device. I then hooked the OUTPUT of the EQ1 to the 5.1 Bypass Sub Input on the Processor. This is on the same 5.1 bypass that i use for the front left channel. Both signals are now in relation to each other and move up and down together.
> 
> I set the master volume so that the Front left was reading 75db and then wound UP the gain on the back of the sub to 10am to get near to it and make remembering the setting easier. I still had to adjust the Sub trim up to +2db to get it exact.
> 
> I may have been missing something in the EQ1 manual but i think what i've done makes sense. I swapped all the cables back to normal, put on the THX intro on the Phantom menace and was nearly blown out of the seat. The Pod race scene was back to it's former glory but better with lush textured Bass that i've been missing for so long
> 
> I can't believe that no one else has not spotted this problem too. Maybe it's in the manual and i was just being dim and stupid . I've mailed Ed my findings and hopefully he'll post here with some comments.


I'm not certain how your sub could end up low compared to your speakers. At the Level Matching step, I plugged the AS-EQ1 into each of my 5 channel inputs, adjusted the trim level for that channel and verified they all read 75db on the computer, then I did both of my subwoofers, adjusting the gain on the plate amp of the sub to 75db. If you did the same, then all your speakers and sub(s) should have been set to the same level. Also when doing the measurements in each listening position, the AS-EQ1 would send a tone out my center speaker and then out the subs. I can only guess this was checking levels again. Just to be sure, I pulled out the RS meter a few minutes ago and went into speaker settings on my receiver. Using the test tone from the receiver, all speakers and sub channel read the same. It does appear that you have some different inputs on your system. I just used the multi-channel analog inputs on my receiver.


----------



## malikarshad

malikarshad said:


> Doug,
> I've attached the PDF of before and after graph of SUB EQ. Surprisingly there is no dip at 35Hz there. It shows up only in REW Graph and i've smoothen the REW graph by 1/3 octave.
> To answer your questions
> 
> I've used the correct mics for calibrating processor and AS-EQ1. The Auto-EQ Assist Radio button was turned on while calibrating using MultiEQ on the integra
> After running MultiEQ on Integra I set the master volume to 0db before matching level using SubEQ.
> I used the Multichannel input on the integra to level match the speakers at 75db. In fact I level matched all the speakers to 75db by manually switching the cable on integra to the relevant inputs. The sub was also level matched to 75db using SubEQ test tone by adusting the sub gain. The speaker were level matched using the integra trim level. The master volume was set to 0 db through out the level matching process.
> My Question at this point is should the crossover be set to 80hz in the integra before Measuring the sub.
> I used the Left channel that was set to Full Band in integra to measure the subwoofer. There was no processing enabled whatsoever on the multichannel input.
> SubEQ calculated the trim level of -4.1 and distance of 19.3. The sub is about 11feet physically from the main listening position.
> The Sub phase is set to 0. The sub crossover is disabled. The subsonic filter is set to 20 Hz. There are no ports plugged on the sub.
> 
> Given all this I want to understand why there is a dip at 35Hz in the REW graph. JimP suggested to reverse the polarity of sub in the processor but I don't have this option.
> 
> I'm happy with the result but I want to make sure I'm getting the best out of AS-EQ1.


Ok I did some more REW measurements last night. This time i measured Left front, Right Front and center individually.

Left Front - Blue Line
Right Front - Red line
Center - Purple line

If you notice the Right front has a larger dip of approx. -7db at 35Hz compared to left and the center. In fact center has a better curve compared to the fronts.

I used the Left channel when EQing with AS-EQ1.

I always set the crossover to 80Hz for all my speakers in the my Integra processor. I thought the measurement should be identical for all the speakers from 15-80hz but its not the case.
Can somebody please explain why is that?:scratch:


----------



## JimP

Is your right speaker near a wall?

Post a photo or a diagram of your room.


----------



## jagman

Patrick Nevin said:


> Results
> 
> Before
> View attachment 14334
> 
> 
> After
> View attachment 14335


The new curve looks pretty but it killed your low end output. You had a beautiful house curve with the output at 20Hz a few dB hot and solid output down to about 15Hz. Now your response takes a nose dive at 20Hz. The only thing you needed was a 5dB boost at 50Hz. How do low end effects on blockbuster movies sound? Have you noticed a difference? That's great if your happy... I just know I wouldn't want the really deep stuff cut off like that.


----------



## malikarshad

JimP said:


> Is your right speaker near a wall?
> Post a photo or a diagram of your room.


Here is the photo of front speakers. Yes the right is near the wall.
I have GIK acoustic panels installed in the room. I have 4 bass traps(244) in each corner and one monster trap on the rear walls. The Side walls has 3 traps on each side to catch the reflection.


----------



## Ed Mullen

Lordoftherings said:


> Ahhh... Thank you for the correction. Now, that makes more sense. But still, that much of a delay?
> 
> Bob


Yes, the latency is a combination of ADC / DAC delay plus the number of samples required by the DSP. If you want more specifics than that, contact Audyssey directly at [email protected].


----------



## Ed Mullen

Lordoftherings said:


> :wow: Hey Ed, is there a sale coming soon on this? Summer sale perhaps. :bigsmile:
> 
> But seriously, I also have two big subs, and it seems to be the ideal solution.
> 
> I really appreciate your time and effort to explain very precisely to all members and owners here.
> It is done very professionally. And only a true PRO can do this the way you do. :T
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Bob


Thanks, Bob. The AS-EQ1 _is_ on sale right now - pre-order pricing is $699 and this will increase after the second production run is completed. Pre-orders exceeded even our high expectations, and we're holding the pre-order price through the 2nd production run. After that (sometime in August-September probably), the price will go up. Pre-ordering now is a no-risk proposition - all it does is secure your place in line and we don't charge your card until the unit ships, and you can cancel anytime. Ordering later is riskier because you might be into the 3rd production run, and the price might be higher, and you'll be waiting that much longer.


----------



## Ed Mullen

stevefish69 said:


> I've posted this on AV-Forums where i normally hang out but thought i'd share me experience here too.
> 
> Well i've just had an interesting evening. I've always believed that the EQ1 has been setting my Sub channel too low from day 1. It's always told me to set the gain on the back of my Ultra to around 9am which i've done but i always sensed something was wrong. I could never understand how the EQ1 is channel matching the Sub and speakers and yet does not know how high the main channel is in relation to the Sub. All you normally do is adjust the gain on the Sub until it's 75db and then wind the master volume up or down to match.
> 
> Today i grabbed out the RS meter and checked and low and behold, the Sub channel appeared to be set around 10db low
> 
> I'm not really a believer of the RS meter as it's un-calibrated and i just thought it must be playing up. Surely my state of the art EQ1 could not be that far out.
> 
> Whilst PM'ing Ed with my findings i had a bit of a brainwave. I disconnected the Sub from the EQ1 and hooked it into the back of the processor as you would if you were not using an EQ device. I then hooked the OUTPUT of the EQ1 to the 5.1 Bypass Sub Input on the Processor. This is on the same 5.1 bypass that i use for the front left channel. Both signals are now in relation to each other and move up and down together.
> 
> I set the master volume so that the Front left was reading 75db and then wound UP the gain on the back of the sub to 10am to get near to it and make remembering the setting easier. I still had to adjust the Sub trim up to +2db to get it exact.
> 
> I may have been missing something in the EQ1 manual but i think what i've done makes sense. I swapped all the cables back to normal, put on the THX intro on the Phantom menace and was nearly blown out of the seat. The Pod race scene was back to it's former glory but better with lush textured Bass that i've been missing for so long
> 
> I can't believe that no one else has not spotted this problem too. Maybe it's in the manual and i was just being dim and stupid . I've mailed Ed my findings and hopefully he'll post here with some comments.


The master volume should not be adjusted during the level matching process. It should be set to 0 or to whatever the default reference level calibration setting is.

Connect the AS-EQ1 to a multi-channel speaker input, run the test tone, and adjust the TRIM level for that speaker channel until it reads 75 dB. Repeat for all other speaker channels. 

Make note of all trim settings and migrate them to the digital inputs trim menu, if it is separate and independent from the analog multi-channel input (some AVRs have two completely independent sets of trim controls for analog/digital inputs). That could be where your problem was occuring. 

Run the subwoofer tone and adjust the gain on the plate amp until the subwoofer reads 75 dB. Then run the EQ routine. If you want to run the subwoofer hotter _afterward_, that is OK.


----------



## Ed Mullen

malikarshad said:


> Doug,
> I've attached the PDF of before and after graph of SUB EQ. Surprisingly there is no dip at 35Hz there. It shows up only in REW Graph and i've smoothen the REW graph by 1/3 octave.
> To answer your questions
> 
> I've used the correct mics for calibrating processor and AS-EQ1. The Auto-EQ Assist Radio button was turned on while calibrating using MultiEQ on the integra
> After running MultiEQ on Integra I set the master volume to 0db before matching level using SubEQ.
> I used the Multichannel input on the integra to level match the speakers at 75db. In fact I level matched all the speakers to 75db by manually switching the cable on integra to the relevant inputs. The sub was also level matched to 75db using SubEQ test tone by adusting the sub gain. The speaker were level matched using the integra trim level. The master volume was set to 0 db through out the level matching process.
> My Question at this point is should the crossover be set to 80hz in the integra before Measuring the sub.
> I used the Left channel that was set to Full Band in integra to measure the subwoofer. There was no processing enabled whatsoever on the multichannel input.
> SubEQ calculated the trim level of -4.1 and distance of 19.3. The sub is about 11feet physically from the main listening position.
> The Sub phase is set to 0. The sub crossover is disabled. The subsonic filter is set to 20 Hz. There are no ports plugged on the sub.
> 
> Given all this I want to understand why there is a dip at 35Hz in the REW graph. JimP suggested to reverse the polarity of sub in the processor but I don't have this option.
> 
> I'm happy with the result but I want to make sure I'm getting the best out of AS-EQ1.


_"I've used the correct mics for calibrating processor and AS-EQ1. The Auto-EQ Assist Radio button was turned on while calibrating using MultiEQ on the integra."_

*Correct. *

_"After running MultiEQ on Integra I set the master volume to 0db before matching level using SubEQ."_

*Correct.*

_"I used the Multichannel input on the integra to level match the speakers at 75db. In fact I level matched all the speakers to 75db by manually switching the cable on integra to the relevant inputs. The sub was also level matched to 75db using SubEQ test tone by adusting the sub gain."_

*Correct.*

_"The speaker were level matched using the integra trim level. The master volume was set to 0 db through out the level matching process."_

*Correct.*

_"My Question at this point is should the crossover be set to 80hz in the integra before Measuring the sub."_

*The crossover setting in the AVR is not relevant when the AS-EQ1 measures the subwoofer, as the AS-EQ1 should be directly connected to the subwoofer input and not the AVR.*

_"I used the Left channel that was set to Full Band in integra to measure the subwoofer. There was no processing enabled whatsoever on the multichannel input."_

*This procedure is incorrect. The AS-EQ1 subwoofer output should not be connected to anything on the AVR. It should be connected directly to the subwoofer input. *

_"SubEQ calculated the trim level of -4.1 and distance of 19.3. The sub is about 11feet physically from the main listening position."_

*That may change if you re-run with the AS-EQ1 connected directly to the subwoofer.*

_"The Sub phase is set to 0. The sub crossover is disabled. The subsonic filter is set to 20 Hz. There are no ports plugged on the sub."_

*Please plug one port on the subwoofer. Running with all ports open and the tune switch set to 20 Hz is a mismatch and can damage the woofers. That is also why your FR is rolling off earlier after the AS-EQ1. *

_"Given all this I want to understand why there is a dip at 35Hz in the REW graph. JimP suggested to reverse the polarity of sub in the processor but I don't have this option."_

*I'm not certain at this point whether you are measuring the FR of the subwoofer or the speakers. If you measure the FR of the subwoofer only, the test rig should be connected directly to the subwoofer. 

If you want to measure the FR of the speakers and subwoofer combined, then you'll need to connect the test rig to the AVR with the speakers set to Small. This may cause some phase anomalies between the speaker and subwoofer which cannot be fully resolved with just the distance controls, and could create a dip in the combined FR at some point in the pass band.*


----------



## stevefish69

Ed Mullen said:


> The master volume should not be adjusted during the level matching process. It should be set to 0 or to whatever the default reference level calibration setting is.
> 
> Connect the AS-EQ1 to a multi-channel speaker input, run the test tone, and adjust the TRIM level for that speaker channel until it reads 75 dB. Repeat for all other speaker channels.
> 
> Make note of all trim settings and migrate them to the digital inputs trim menu, if it is separate and independent from the analog multi-channel input (some AVRs have two completely independent sets of trim controls for analog/digital inputs). That could be where your problem was occuring.
> 
> Run the subwoofer tone and adjust the gain on the plate amp until the subwoofer reads 75 dB. Then run the EQ routine. If you want to run the subwoofer hotter _afterward_, that is OK.


Sorry to be a pain in the backside. My Processor does NOT allow channel trimming of the Left channel (See page 10 of manual). This channel level is fixed, you then adjust the volume to get 75db (Which is -11db on the master volume) and then adjust the trim on all other channels to suit. The manual of the Audiolab even states to adjust the volume until the left channel outputs 75db and then to match all other speakers. There is no reference output as such.

What i'm trying to get at is that if the EQ1 is presuming the master volume is at 0db (as per the manual) when it outputs it's tone to get 75db, it's not. It actually 11db lower on the volume pot. If the volume is turned up to 0db, then and only then will the Sub be outputting the required voltage to match the fronts. Surely then the mains will be 11db higher than the Sub.

I know the Sub channel was set too low as with a pretty meaty film running, the driver was hardly moving to touch, let alone being heard even if the power amps were switched off.

Once again, sorry to be a pain, but i think it's my poxy Processor throwing a spanner in the works.


----------



## malikarshad

Ed Mullen said:


> _"I used the Left channel that was set to Full Band in integra to measure the subwoofer. There was no processing enabled whatsoever on the multichannel input."_
> *This procedure is incorrect. The AS-EQ1 subwoofer output should not be connected to anything on the AVR. It should be connected directly to the subwoofer input. *


Ed can you please clarify these points.
*When level matching at 75 db using AS-EQ1 mic I connect the AS-EQ1 center/sat to the left channel multichannel input of processor. 
*At this point should I remove the center/sat cable. Should the Sub A input to AS-EQ1 from the processor preout be removed as well?
*Also when level matching the Sub the only connection should be from AS-EQ1 SubA output to subwoofer input? Correct?
*And while meaursing the Sub should there be only one connection? AS-EQ1 output to Subwoofer input and all other connection from AVR removed.

Thanks Ed for taking time to respond.


----------



## Doug McBride

stevefish69 said:


> Sorry to be a pain in the backside. My Processor does NOT allow channel trimming of the Left channel (See page 10 of manual). This channel level is fixed, you then adjust the volume to get 75db (Which is -11db on the master volume) and then adjust the trim on all other channels to suit. The manual of the Audiolab even states to adjust the volume until the left channel outputs 75db and then to match all other speakers. There is no reference output as such.
> 
> What i'm trying to get at is that if the EQ1 is presuming the master volume is at 0db (as per the manual) when it outputs it's tone to get 75db, it's not. It actually 11db lower on the volume pot. If the volume is turned up to 0db, then and only then will the Sub be outputting the required voltage to match the fronts. Surely then the mains will be 11db higher than the Sub.
> 
> I know the Sub channel was set too low as with a pretty meaty film running, the driver was hardly moving to touch, let alone being heard even if the power amps were switched off.
> 
> Once again, sorry to be a pain, but i think it's my poxy Processor throwing a spanner in the works.


As far as the setting of the Master Volume, the manual states " Adjust the master volume of the AVR or Pre/Pro to the “Reference Calibration Level.” This is typically “0.0 dB,” but check the AVR or Pre/Pro owners manual, since this is often not the reference level; or recall how you calibrated to be sure."

If you are setting your MV to 0 and reference is really at -10 or -11, and calibrated the sub to 75dB using the AS-EQ1, that would probably explain the 10dB difference since your mains are now at ~85dB. The key here is "typically" but not always on the ref MV level.

Cheers,

Doug


----------



## stevefish69

Doug McBride said:


> If you are setting your MV to 0 and reference is really at -10 or -11, and calibrated the sub to 75dB using the AS-EQ1, that would probably explain the 10dB difference since your mains are now at ~85dB. The key here is "typically" but not always on the ref MV level.


Ta Doug

Finally someone has an understanding one where i'm coming from.

If the mains are at 85db and the Sub is at 75db then this is why my loss of impact / Pressurization has disappeared.

What this does mean is that i must be going deaf as most films are watched at -5db which is actually +5db above reference (Presuming Ref level is actually -11db on my pro) :scared:


----------



## Ed Mullen

stevefish69 said:


> Sorry to be a pain in the backside. My Processor does NOT allow channel trimming of the Left channel (See page 10 of manual). This channel level is fixed, you then adjust the volume to get 75db (Which is -11db on the master volume) and then adjust the trim on all other channels to suit. The maunal of the Audiolab even states to adjust the volume until the left channel outputs 75db and then to match all other speakers. There is no reference output as such.
> 
> What i'm trying to get at is that if the EQ1 is presuming the master volume is at 0db (as per the manual) when it outputs it's tone to get 75db, it's not. It actually 11db lower on the volume pot. If the volume is turned up to 0db, then and only then will the Sub be outputting the required voltage to match the fronts. Surely then the mains will be 11db higher than the Sub.
> 
> I know the Sub channel was set too low as with a pretty meaty film running, the driver was hardly moving to touch, let alone being heard even if the power amps were switched off.
> 
> Once again, sorry to be a pain, but i think it's my poxy Processor throwing a spanner in the works.


Adjusting your master volume as stated above (to -11 so the L channel reads 75 dB) is perfectly fine. Then adjust all other trim levels so they are 75 dB also. Then adjust the subwoofer gain so it is also 75 dB. 

After the EQ routine, the AS-EQ1 will provide you with a subwoofer trim setting. This setting is absolute (not relative to any pre-EQ value); just input the value in the AVR. Ditto for the distance setting. 

The AS-EQ1 doesn't presume a given master volume setting. The master volume is a global gain control which affects all channels equally. If the speakers are subwoofer are level matched at one master volume setting (which you did), then they will be level matched at all master volume settings.

The reason we use 75 dB, is because that is what the AS-EQ1 needs in order to properly EQ the subwoofer without running into clipping/gain problems in the digital domain. And that's why any post-EQ subwoofer trim level recommendations are generally pretty small if the level matching step was performed correctly.

Regardless, if you perform the level matching step properly, and then independently check the calibration levels with the AVR test tones and an RS SPL meter and discover the subwoofer is running 10 dB lower than the speakers, then something else is wrong in the AVR set-up or trim level menu (possibly you have dual sets of trim levels - one analog and one digital), because the level matching step in the AS-EQ1 manual isn't flawed.


----------



## Doug McBride

malikarshad said:


> Ed can you please clarify these points.
> *When level matching at 75 db using AS-EQ1 mic I connect the AS-EQ1 center/sat to the left channel multichannel input of processor.
> *At this point should I remove the center/sat cable. Should the Sub A input to AS-EQ1 from the processor preout be removed as well?
> *Also when level matching the Sub the only connection should be from AS-EQ1 SubA output to subwoofer input? Correct?
> *And while meaursing the Sub should there be only one connection? AS-EQ1 output to Subwoofer input and all other connection from AVR removed.
> 
> Thanks Ed for taking time to respond.


I'm not Ed (I also don't play him on TV) but would like to help...

*When level matching at 75 db using AS-EQ1 mic I connect the AS-EQ1 center/sat to the left channel multichannel input of processor. 

*Fine*

*At this point should I remove the center/sat cable. Should the Sub A input to AS-EQ1 from the processor preout be removed as well?

*Leave both hooked up. During measurement, the AS-EQ1 will send tones to your Left/Center channel as well as the Sub(s). The Sub A input from your processor is not used at this time, but it needs to be hooked up eventually.*

*Also when level matching the Sub the only connection should be from AS-EQ1 SubA output to subwoofer input? Correct?

*Yes, but you should also have your Sat Output from the AS-EQ1 hooked to your Left or Center multichannel input on your AVR. I think you meant that but wanted to amke sure.*

*And while meaursing the Sub should there be only one connection? AS-EQ1 output to Subwoofer input and all other connection from AVR removed.

*The connection diagram for Level Matching and Measurement is on Page 22 of the Operator Manual. When measuring, just as in level setting, both the Sub(s) and the Sat (left/Center) should be hooked up.*

Going back to your dip at 35Hz, can you run REW with just the sub attached to take the mains out of the measurement? Also, any chance of sliding that beast to another spot to see how that affects the result?

Doug


----------



## malikarshad

Ed Mullen said:


> Regardless, if you perform the level matching step properly, and then independently check the calibration levels with the AVR test tones and an RS SPL meter and discover the subwoofer is running 10 dB lower than the speakers, then something else is wrong in the AVR set-up or trim level menu (possibly you have dual sets of trim levels - one analog and one digital), because the level matching step in the AS-EQ1 manual isn't flawed.


This is exactly what I'm experiencing too. When I check the levels with RS meter all the channels are level matched at 72db but the subwoofer is off by about -8db.

Doug saw your post after i replied on this.
I'll try to take a REW of only Sub connected.


----------



## stevefish69

Ed Mullen said:


> The AS-EQ1 doesn't presume a given master volume setting. The master volume is a global gain control which affects all channels equally. If the speakers are subwoofer are level matched at one master volume setting (which you did), then they will be level matched at all master volume settings.
> 
> 
> Regardless, if you perform the level matching step properly, and then independently check the calibration levels with the AVR test tones and an RS SPL meter and discover the subwoofer is running 10 dB lower than the speakers, then something else is wrong in the AVR set-up or trim level menu (possibly you have dual sets of trim levels - one analog and one digital), because the level matching step in the AS-EQ1 manual isn't flawed.


This is also assuming that if 1.2v (for instance) goes into the Processor from the EQ1 at -11db MV to make 75db that 1.2v will be output to all channels too at the same MV when running normally.

There are two sets of trim levels on my AP, but all trim levels are within 1-2db on both analogue and digital domain. Could it be something to do with the dreaded -10db LFE channel thingy.

If i don't get it sorted (and know it's technically correct) then TBH i may go back to using a BFD, flog the EQ1 and have a holiday in the sun instead :hide:


----------



## Ed Mullen

stevefish69 said:


> Ta Doug
> 
> Finally someone has an understanding one where i'm coming from.
> 
> If the mains are at 85db and the Sub is at 75db then this is why my loss of impact / Pressurization has disappeared.
> 
> What this does mean is that i must be going deaf as most films are watched at -5db which is actually +5db above reference (Presuming Ref level is actually -11db on my pro) :scared:


This theory and line of thinking is not correct - please see my above post. If you performed the level matching step correctly, then the subwoofer and speakers will be level matched at all master volume settings, not just one. Something else is going on with the AVR set-up menu if - after level matching - your subwoofer is independently proven to be running 10 dB cooler than the speaker channels.


----------



## Ed Mullen

stevefish69 said:


> This is also assuming that if 1.2v (for instance) goes into the Processor from the EQ1 at -11db MV to make 75db that 1.2v will be output to all channels too at the same MV when running normally.
> 
> There are two sets of trim levels on my AP, but all trim levels are within 1-2db on both analogue and digital domain. Could it be something to do with the dreaded -10db LFE channel thingy.
> 
> If i don't get it sorted (and know it's technically correct) then TBH i may go back to using a BFD, flog the EQ1 and have a holiday in the sun instead :hide:



Right - the AS-EQ1 is simply duplicating externally what the AVR test tones do internally. You play the test tone, set the master volume at a fixed level, adjust the trim levels for all speaker channels, and then adjust the subwoofer gain to obtain the same SPL as the speakers. The process is absolutely the same. 

So when the master volume is changed, the voltage driving all speaker channels and the subwoofer channel also changes by a uniform/global amount, so the SPL of all channels and the subwoofer also changes by that same amount (volt change = dB change).

If you have two sets of trim levels, then make sure the analog settings you generated using the AS-EQ1 are migrated over to the digital input trim level menu.

The 10 dB LFE channel issue may very well be responsible for your problem - I can't tell from here, and I don't know what player and AVR you are using or how they are connected. For the edification of others, the LFE channel must boosted 10 dB during the decoding process before dumping to the analog domain. The LFE channel is therefore 10 dB louder than the redirected bass from the speaker channels. If the LFE channel is not correctly boosted during the decoding process, then it can result in weak bass, even if the speakers and subwoofer are calibrated correctly. 

Some AVRs have an LFE channel attenuation control, which you should check. This is not the subwoofer channel level and the two should not be confused. The LFE channel level control usually has a range of -10 to 0, and it should always be set to 0.


----------



## stevefish69

Thanks Ed for taking the time to educate my stupid mind :duh:

I've PM'd Russ Will over on AVF as he currently has an EQ1 for review / comparison and uses exactly the same Processor as me - I'll shut up now, leave the Sub channel set where it is and see if he has experienced a similar problem.


----------



## Ed Mullen

stevefish69 said:


> Thanks Ed for taking the time to educate my stupid mind :duh:
> 
> I've PM'd Russ Will over on AVF as he currently has an EQ1 for review / comparison and uses exactly the same Processor as me - I'll shut up now, leave the Sub channel set where it is and see if he has experienced a similar problem.


Well ultimately your satisfaction is all that matters, because obviously you love the AS-EQ1 but there is a problem with your subwoofer level somewhere in the signal chain (we just haven't found it yet). 

From an academic standpoint, it will be interesting to see exactly what is causing this problem - what player and processor are you using, and how are they connected? If you are using analog outputs from the player, I'm immediately suspicious of the 10 dB LFE decoding issue, since that's been a problem with various players for years now. 

I have a simple test I run for this exact problem when troubleshooting systems - it's a Dolby Digital DVD with a 40 Hz sine wave on all five speaker channels and the LFE channel all encoded at the same level. If all the speakers are set to Small, the tone plays at the same SPL for each speaker channel, and then plays 10 dB louder for the LFE channel. Simple test pass/fail. 

Some enthusiasts have tried the work around of boosting the analog subwoofer feed from the player by 10 dB, but the problem that creates is it also boosts the redirected bass 10 dB (which doesn't need any boosting), so it simply creates the same problem, just 10 dB louder. The only way this work-around is actually successful is if all speakers are set to full-range in the player and only the LFE channel is output from the player's subwoofer pre-out. Then that channel can be boosted 10 dB on the AVR end without problem. Of course this assumes the AVR can perform bass management on the analog inputs, and many of them can't. So in that case you're stuck with running all speakers on full-range and that doesn't work very well either.


----------



## stevefish69

Ed Mullen said:


> From an academic standpoint, it will be interesting to see exactly what is causing this problem - what player and processor are you using, and how are they connected? If you are using analog outputs from the player, I'm immediately suspicious of the 10 dB LFE decoding issue, since that's been a problem with various players for years now.


Are you poor guys at SVS not sick and tired of me yet addle:

I'm using the kit in my Sig list.

An Audiolab 8000AP Processor hooked up to two Parasound Power amps.

For DVD / HD-DVD i use the Tosh XE1 via HDMI outputting 5.1 PCM
For Blu Ray and games i use the PS3 again hooked up via HDMI and outputting 5.1 PCM

I just re-ran the internal tones on the Audiolab and to get 75db the MV needs to be -22db. The main channels are all showing 75db on C-weighted slow and the Sub channel is showing 73db with the Sub gain at 10am not 9am as the EQ1 suggests. It's strange that in every case the differences are around 10db

I'm gonna leave things as they are now at with the Sub gain at 10am and have a listen tomorrow night to see what how it sounds.


----------



## Ed Mullen

I just read your post over at AVForums. It does sound like you may have a fixed voltage differential which exists between the subwoofer channel and the loudspeaker channel. 

There is only one way around this IMO. Set the AS-EQ1 to calibrate the subwoofer at 75 dB (per the SubEQ GUI and mic) - this will allow it to generate the EQ curve without digital headroom/clipping problems. Then use a Dolby Digital calibration DVD like Avia to set all your channel levels and the subwoofer level. 

I don't trust what is happening in your processor with respect to how it generates test tones which cause the subwoofer to play 10 dB lower than the speakers - something is screwy there. We've seen (many times) the subwoofer output jack fail on pre/pros and AVRs and it sometimes manifests itself in the early stages as a low voltage level (i.e., lower than the speaker channel pre-outs).


----------



## Patrick Nevin

jagman said:


> The new curve looks pretty but it killed your low end output. You had a beautiful house curve with the output at 20Hz a few dB hot and solid output down to about 15Hz. Now your response takes a nose dive at 20Hz. The only thing you needed was a 5dB boost at 50Hz. How do low end effects on blockbuster movies sound? Have you noticed a difference? That's great if your happy... I just know I wouldn't want the really deep stuff cut off like that.


I like it much better. This weekend I am going to change the position of the sub to face the room instead of the wall and see if that gets a better response. I think the sub could sound a little bit louder. I calibrated all the speakers using the internal tones of the Yamaha 2700 to 75 db and the sub to 73 db to account for the inaccurate readings using the rat shack meter.

Thanks
Patrick


----------



## myc52002

I have attached my before / after graphs. I must say I am impressed. This room has been nothing but a pain from the beginning to get these to integrate well. I think I am well in my way to solving this issue. I was like many running the subs too hot so this was a revelation but not totally surprised since I was trying everything to make them work well. My immediate experience has been a MUCH crisper bass region that seems to improve the mid bass as well. A kick drum now sounds like one should. If there is no low bass recorded, the system is not trying to make it be there. This is something new for me and better I must say. Once one hears certain instruments the way they are meant to be heard you can immediately hear that difference.

My system consists of a Lexicon MC12 V5eq, Legacy Audio FOCUS as mains and (2) PC Ultra/2 co-located in a dedicated theater room

I do have a couple of questions for Ed.

1 The MC12 uses a 4 mic calibration setup. I did this calibration with 1 MC12 mic only since it needs to route through the AS-EQ1 during that process. However I think I can still leave the other 3 mics connected directly to the MC12 since there is no output sent to the sub during calibration (so these other 3 hear nothing) which should continue to "fool" the MC12 into seeing a flat sub setting...anything wrong with this thinking?

2 Any reason it would roll the system off before 20Hz after calibrating? That seemed odd to me but not an issue for me either

3 When I set up the MC12 to calibrate it I first deactivated the LFE output because I have it connected to buttkickers rather than having that signal sent to the subwoofers. I basically wanted to keep the LFE out of all the processing loops since it has nothing to do with the subs. Would this in any way incorrectly cause the EQ1 to calibrate the subs incorrectly? After I finished the processor calibration and AS-EQ1 processing I reactivated the LFE output. 

Thanks for a great product at a great price.


----------



## malikarshad

Ed Mullen said:


> _"SubEQ calculated the trim level of -4.1 and distance of 19.3. The sub is about 11feet physically from the main listening position."_
> 
> *That may change if you re-run with the AS-EQ1 connected directly to the subwoofer.*
> 
> _"The Sub phase is set to 0. The sub crossover is disabled. The subsonic filter is set to 20 Hz. There are no ports plugged on the sub."_
> 
> *Please plug one port on the subwoofer. Running with all ports open and the tune switch set to 20 Hz is a mismatch and can damage the woofers. That is also why your FR is rolling off earlier after the AS-EQ1. *
> 
> _"Given all this I want to understand why there is a dip at 35Hz in the REW graph. JimP suggested to reverse the polarity of sub in the processor but I don't have this option."_
> 
> *I'm not certain at this point whether you are measuring the FR of the subwoofer or the speakers. If you measure the FR of the subwoofer only, the test rig should be connected directly to the subwoofer.
> 
> If you want to measure the FR of the speakers and subwoofer combined, then you'll need to connect the test rig to the AVR with the speakers set to Small. This may cause some phase anomalies between the speaker and subwoofer which cannot be fully resolved with just the distance controls, and could create a dip in the combined FR at some point in the pass band.*


Here are the changes I made

I plugged one port on the subwoofer and it's set at 20Hz tune
I re-checked all the options on the Integra processor for any LFE or subwoofer level boost or attenuation and there is none.
I ran the SubEQ again and results are almost identical. The trim level is -4.2 and distance 19.4ft.
I took REW measurements of Sub only, Fronts without sub and Fronts with Sub.

Looking at the graph it seems

The Fronts graph with the subwoofer has the same 35Hz dip and is identical to FR that I had taken earlier
Fronts graph without the subwoofer has no 35Hz dip
The subwoofer graph looks good.
*My question is what can be done to resolve this 35Hz dip. Or does it really matter?*

About Level matching

I level matched the Left speaker to 75db and subwoofer 75db before taking measurements with SubEQ.
Previously I'd level matched all my speakers using SubEQ test tones. I verified the level again with Integra internal test tones and they matched.
When I checked the subwoofer test tone then its off by -8db. So I used DVE disk to verify the subwoofer test tone and it matches accurately with the speakers. Then I used the Avia disk and then it was again off by -6db.

So now the question is why the AVR internal test tones & Avia shows a -8db lower than the speaker levels. This confuses me :scratchhead:

*So for all of us what's the best way to verify the subwoofer level after SubEQ.*


----------



## JohnM

malikarshad said:


> *My question is what can be done to resolve this 35Hz dip. Or does it really matter?*


Your fronts are out of phase with your sub at 35Hz, hence the dip in the combined output that mirrors the peak in the front response. If you are running your fronts full range, try them with a crossover instead, or try changing the sub phase - but that will likely shift the problem rather than fix it if the fronts are full range.


----------



## Ed Mullen

Agree your front speaker and the sub are out of phase @ 35 Hz. Are your speakers vented towers with a rated extension of 30-35 Hz? The phase response of a vented speaker changes rapidly at/near the system tuning frequency, which can create the null you are seeing. 

Also agree all your speakers should be set to Small with a crossover frequency which reflects their respective bass capabilites and is protective of their woofers at higher playback levels. Usually 60 Hz works well for towers, and 80 Hz is good for larger centers/surrounds. For smaller center/surround, use 100 Hz. 

Do NOT use DVE to check any subwoofer levels. DVE uses the LFE channel for the subwoofer calibration tone and has an encoding level error of exactly 10 dB. The subwoofer tone is mastered at the same level as the speaker channels and thus failed to account for the 10 dB boost to the LFE channel from the surround sound processor during decoding. So the DVE subwoofer tone is 10 dB too hot, which causes users to calibrate the subwoofer 10 dB too cool. But I digress.....

With the speakers and subwoofer calibrated to 75 dB with the AS-EQ1, what does Avia say for the same speaker channel and for the subwoofer? I'll need both readings, because I'm not so much concered about the absolute SPL differences as I am in the differential between the speaker and subwoofer. 

A preemptive caveat - Avia uses redirected bass for the subwoofer, so the speaker must be set to Small in order for the subwoofer tone to play through the subwoofer. The speaker will handle some of the subwoofer tone too, obviously, so to the extent they are in phase and couple over the crossover bandwidth there can be some reinforcement over the subwoofer playing alone. Conversely, if the speaker and subwoofer are not in phase, there will be some cancellation compared to the subwoofer playing alone. If you want to really get fancy, you can report the speaker tone, the subwoofer tone with the speaker/sub both playing, and the subwoofer tone with the speaker disconnected.


----------



## malikarshad

JohnM said:


> Your fronts are out of phase with your sub at 35Hz, hence the dip in the combined output that mirrors the peak in the front response. If you are running your fronts full range, try them with a crossover instead, or try changing the sub phase - but that will likely shift the problem rather than fix it if the fronts are full range.


I run the fronts at 80hz xover in the processor. But when I run AS-EQ1 SubEQ I set them to full range to take measurements and then i revert it back to 80Hz xover.
The REW measurements are with 80Hz xover enabled in the processor.

What confuses me is that when the xover is enabled the FR from 15Hz-80Hz should be identical to that of subwoofer? Why is the signal sent to Fronts when the xover is enabled in the processor?

Setting the phase on the sub after SubEQ defeats the purpose of AS-EQ1. But I'm naive so I'll let SVS answer this.


----------



## lorca

> Please plug one port on the subwoofer. Running with all ports open and the tune switch set to 20 Hz is a mismatch and can damage the woofers. That is also why your FR is rolling off earlier after the AS-EQ1.


Tell me if i'm being dumb but doesnt the manual tell us to set the switch to 20hz with no bungs in.



> SVS Tuning Chart Subsonic Filter Knob
> Stock tune (no ports blocked) 20Hz
> With one port-blocked 15Hz
> With two ports-blocked * 10Hz
> With three ports-blocked Sealed
> 
> if you put the subsonic filter into the 10Hz mode (* contact SVS about details
> on the use of this deepest mode). This simple table indicates the settings you
> should use in setting up your sub blocks and the subsonic filter knob.


----------



## Ed Mullen

myc52002 said:


> I have attached my before / after graphs. I must say I am impressed. This room has been nothing but a pain from the beginning to get these to integrate well. I think I am well in my way to solving this issue. I was like many running the subs too hot so this was a revelation but not totally surprised since I was trying everything to make them work well. My immediate experience has been a MUCH crisper bass region that seems to improve the mid bass as well. A kick drum now sounds like one should. If there is no low bass recorded, the system is not trying to make it be there. This is something new for me and better I must say. Once one hears certain instruments the way they are meant to be heard you can immediately hear that difference.
> 
> My system consists of a Lexicon MC12 V5eq, Legacy Audio FOCUS as mains and (2) PC Ultra/2 co-located in a dedicated theater room
> 
> I do have a couple of questions for Ed.
> 
> 1 The MC12 uses a 4 mic calibration setup. I did this calibration with 1 MC12 mic only since it needs to route through the AS-EQ1 during that process. However I think I can still leave the other 3 mics connected directly to the MC12 since there is no output sent to the sub during calibration (so these other 3 hear nothing) which should continue to "fool" the MC12 into seeing a flat sub setting...anything wrong with this thinking?
> 
> 2 Any reason it would roll the system off before 20Hz after calibrating? That seemed odd to me but not an issue for me either
> 
> 3 When I set up the MC12 to calibrate it I first deactivated the LFE output because I have it connected to buttkickers rather than having that signal sent to the subwoofers. I basically wanted to keep the LFE out of all the processing loops since it has nothing to do with the subs. Would this in any way incorrectly cause the EQ1 to calibrate the subs incorrectly? After I finished the processor calibration and AS-EQ1 processing I reactivated the LFE output.
> 
> Thanks for a great product at a great price.


1) You can leave the other three mics connected, but make absolutely sure there are no sources of ULFs in the house while the AS-EQ1 is looping the signal back to the Lexicon mic jack. The AS-EQ1 calibration mic jack also sees the loop-back signal and this in essence shunts the mic output, and prevents it from contaminating the loop-back signal in the event any low level ULFs are present. The same is not true for your three other Lex mics (which have an unshunted direct feed to your pre/pro), so any ULFs (dryer, furnace, garbage truck, etc.) will contaminate the looped back signal and cause the Lex to build an EQ file. So just make sure your house is completely silent if you leave the other three mics connected during the loop-back step. 

2) We don't make a PC-Ultra/2, so please clarify the model, and what tune it's running. If it's a PB12-Ultra/2 in the 25 Hz tune (all ports open), it will roll-off at about 22-23 Hz. If it's a PC13-Ultra in the 20 Hz tune (all ports open), it will roll-off around 21-22 Hz.

3) You need to clarify "LFE output" vs. subwoofer channel output - they are potentially two different things. If you mean the subwoofer channel pre-out - that should be routed to the AS-EQ1 during the loop-back Lex calibration step, and then disconnected after that point. The AS-EQ1 is connected directly to the subwoofer during the level matching and calibration step, so the Lex subwoofer pre-out would have zero effect at that point.


----------



## Doug McBride

malikarshad said:


> I run the fronts at 80hz xover in the processor. But when I run AS-EQ1 SubEQ I set them to full range to take measurements and then i revert it back to 80Hz xover.
> The REW measurements are with 80Hz xover enabled in the processor.
> 
> What confuses me is that when the xover is enabled the FR from 15Hz-80Hz should be identical to that of subwoofer? Why is the signal sent to Fronts when the xover is enabled in the processor?
> 
> Setting the phase on the sub after SubEQ defeats the purpose of AS-EQ1. But I'm naive so I'll let SVS answer this.


Out of curiosity, what input are you using for the REW tone? If it is a multichannel input it probaby has no bass management so your crossover will have no effect. Check to see if bass management works on that input and no DSP modes are set. I only speak from painful experience (d'oh!).

Are your front speakers MTS-01s?

Doug


----------



## Doug McBride

lorca said:


> Tell me if i'm being dumb but doesnt the manual tell us to set the switch to 20hz with no bungs in.


I believe his sub is a PB12Plus/2. The native (all ports open) tune of that box is 25Hz. One port blocked is 20Hz, 2 ports blocked is 16Hz, and the sub was not designed to run sealed.

Doug


----------



## malikarshad

Ed Mullen said:


> Agree your front speaker and the sub are out of phase @ 35 Hz. Are your speakers vented towers with a rated extension of 30-35 Hz? .


*Yes the speakers are vented in the rear and it can be sealed using a port plug. Its a 2-way QW Transmission Line with a FR of 42Hz-20kHz(+/- 3db). here is the link to the specifications http://www.salksound.com/speakers_songseries_songtowerqwt_specs.shtml*



Ed Mullen said:


> With the speakers and subwoofer calibrated to 75 dB with the AS-EQ1, what does Avia say for the same speaker channel and for the subwoofer? I'll need both readings, because I'm not so much concered about the absolute SPL differences as I am in the differential between the speaker and subwoofer.


*With Avia the Left Front measured 82db and the sub measured about 74-72db(as the RS needle kept fluctuating btw it). so the differential was about approx -8db. Its the same differential I noticed on the AVR internal test tone.
*



Doug McBride said:


> Out of curiosity, what input are you using for the REW tone? If it is a multichannel input it probaby has no bass management so your crossover will have no effect. Check to see if bass management works on that input and no DSP modes are set. I only speak from painful experience (d'oh!).
> Are your front speakers MTS-01s?
> Doug


*
For REW I use the analog stereo inputs on AUX input of the integra processor and the bass management is enabled with EQ set to Audyssey. No DSP is set. The processor is set to stereo mode.
The Speakers are Salk SongTowers as mentioned in the link above*


----------



## Ed Mullen

malikarshad said:


> *With Avia the Left Front measured 82db and the sub measured about 74-72db(as the RS needle kept fluctuating btw it). so the differential was about approx -8db. Its the same differential I noticed on the AVR internal test tone.
> *



Please disconnect your left front speaker when the subwoofer tone is running and report the results again. Thanks.


----------



## lorca

Doug McBride said:


> I believe his sub is a PB12Plus/2. The native (all ports open) tune of that box is 25Hz. One port blocked is 20Hz, 2 ports blocked is 16Hz, and the sub was not designed to run sealed.
> 
> Doug


Apologies I was being dumb:coocoo:


----------



## JimP

Ed has the patience of a Saint. We need to come up with a special hometheatershack award just for Ed. He deserves it.

I would have nuked malikarshad several post back.


----------



## jagman

Patrick Nevin said:


> I like it much better. This weekend I am going to change the position of the sub to face the room instead of the wall and see if that gets a better response. I think the sub could sound a little bit louder. I calibrated all the speakers using the internal tones of the Yamaha 2700 to 75 db and the sub to 73 db to account for the inaccurate readings using the rat shack meter.
> 
> Thanks
> Patrick


Cool. That's awesome that you hear such good improvment . 

Do you know why your "after" plot drops off so steeply below 20Hz? It is interesting as your "before" plot had solid output to approximately 15Hz. "After" plots posted by other people don't seem to lose the low end response. I wonder why there is a difference... did you add a high pass filter at 20Hz?

Regardless it's nice to see that it is working so well for so many people. A quick, relatively easy fix for a pair of subs is a wonderful addition to the market.


----------



## stevefish69

JimP said:


> Ed has the patience of a Saint. We need to come up with a special hometheatershack award just for Ed. He deserves it.
> 
> I would have nuked malikarshad several post back.


Many Thanks to Ed for sticking with me yesterday during my _hours_ of need.

I've left the gain set at 10am and the ratshack measures 75db on all channels apart from the sub which is reading 73db. I've mailed my Processor manufacturer with a link to this thread, but i'm not holding my breath into finding the answers as to why i have this problem.

I've just watched my 1st film since changing and the difference is astounding. I still cannot locate the PCU in the room, my 3D soundstage has not collapsed and i was greeted with wave after wave of nice clear Bass. Not once did it sound overbloated, larger than life or too loud but by it was great and Super fast. My PCU had a chance to strut it's stuff again for the 1st time in about a month :yay:

A Gunshot in the film was so fast and forcefull that i physically jumped up in my seat with fright :yikes:. The cat also made a mad dash for the door and the wife had a grin ear to ear and was just gobsmacked :bigsmile:


----------



## jagman

Ed --

This device looks extremely promising... and the user reports indicate a top notch product. But, I have one concern. By looking at the plots here on this thread, it looks like this unit employs a 20Hz hi-pass filter. I read through the owners guide and I didn't see anything about a hi pass filter for the sub. I may have missed it. Many of us at the Shack are bassheads... our subs, whether SVS or not (most of have DIY subs), have solid output well below 20Hz. I for instance, have two high excursion 18" drivers in an infinite baffle (and I plan on replacing them with two high excursion 22" drivers). Even my little 18" drivers have an in room -3dB point of 8Hz. Obviously I don't want to lose the last octive. 

So...

1. Is there a 20Hz hi pass filter used?
2. If so, is it adjustable?
3. If so but not adjustable, can it be made user adjustable with a firmware update? 

Thanks in advance for answering these questions!


----------



## Doug McBride

lorca said:


> Apologies I was being dumb:coocoo:


Too many subs to keep track of... :scratch:

Doug


----------



## Fatawan

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16507654#post16507654

I don't think there is any hi pass filter--check my graphs at that link


----------



## Ed Mullen

stevefish69 said:


> Many Thanks to Ed for sticking with me yesterday during my _hours_ of need.
> 
> I've left the gain set at 10am and the ratshack measures 75db on all channels apart from the sub which is reading 73db. I've mailed my Processor manufacturer with a link to this thread, but i'm not holding my breath into finding the answers as to why i have this problem.
> 
> I've just watched my 1st film since changing and the difference is astounding. I still cannot locate the PCU in the room, my 3D soundstage has not collapsed and i was greeted with wave after wave of nice clear Bass. Not once did it sound overbloated, larger than life or too loud but by it was great and Super fast. My PCU had a chance to strut it's stuff again for the 1st time in about a month :yay:
> 
> A Gunshot in the film was so fast and forcefull that i physically jumped up in my seat with fright :yikes:. The cat also made a mad dash for the door and the wife had a grin ear to ear and was just gobsmacked :bigsmile:


Awesome. Mission accomplished. Now grab a beer and kick back and discover all your blockbuster movies all over again. :T


----------



## Ed Mullen

jagman said:


> Ed --
> 
> This device looks extremely promising... and the user reports indicate a top notch product. But, I have one concern. By looking at the plots here on this thread, it looks like this unit employs a 20Hz hi-pass filter. I read through the owners guide and I didn't see anything about a hi pass filter for the sub. I may have missed it. Many of us at the Shack are bassheads... our subs, whether SVS or not (most of have DIY subs), have solid output well below 20Hz. I for instance, have two high excursion 18" drivers in an infinite baffle (and I plan on replacing them with two high excursion 22" drivers). Even my little 18" drivers have an in room -3dB point of 8Hz. Obviously I don't want to lose the last octive.
> 
> So...
> 
> 1. Is there a 20Hz hi pass filter used?
> 2. If so, is it adjustable?
> 3. If so but not adjustable, can it be made user adjustable with a firmware update?
> 
> Thanks in advance for answering these questions!


1) No (zero, zip, nada, zilch).
2) NA.
3) NA.

The AS-EQ1 has the filter resolution and processing power to equalize into the single digits if the subwoofer has a usable response down that deep. 

With that said, if the subwoofer has a high pass, the AS-EQ1 will sniff it out with uncanny ability and will not apply (much) EQ below that point. Typically our subwoofers have a high pass which is a bit deeper than the system resonance frequency, so we can squeeze out another 1/5 octave extension without undue stress on the woofer. You really don't want to go much deeper than that below the corner frequency of the system, as woofer distortion/excursion rises dramatically. The AS-EQ1 knows this and follows suit accordingly.

My system currently uses dual Ultra/2 subs in sealed mode with the tune switch to Bypass (disables EQ curves but retains a 12 Hz 2nd order high pass). And the AS-EQ1 has my system flat to exactly 12 Hz, and it's ~3 dB down at 10 Hz.


----------



## Ed Mullen

Also, your electronics chain will eventually start to high pass itself - DVD player, AVR, and your pro-sound amp for the IB woofers will probably all start to tail off around 6-7 Hz, so chasing the response much below 10 Hz can be an exercise in frustration.

But if your IB is solid down to ~8 Hz, the AS-EQ1 will get you there, as Fatawan shows in his REW graphs (he's still seeing response down to ~6 Hz).


----------



## jagman

Fatawan said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16507654#post16507654
> 
> I don't think there is any hi pass filter--check my graphs at that link


I edited this post to take my foot out of my mouth! Awesome product!


----------



## jagman

Ed Mullen said:


> 1) No (zero, zip, nada, zilch).
> 2) NA.
> 3) NA.
> 
> The AS-EQ1 has the filter resolution and processing power to equalize into the single digits if the subwoofer has a usable response down that deep.
> 
> With that said, if the subwoofer has a high pass, the AS-EQ1 will sniff it out with uncanny ability and will not apply (much) EQ below that point. Typically our subwoofers have a high pass which is a bit deeper than the system resonance frequency, so we can squeeze out another 1/5 octave extension without undue stress on the woofer. You really don't want to go much deeper than that below the corner frequency of the system, as woofer distortion/excursion rises dramatically. The AS-EQ1 knows this and follows suit accordingly.
> 
> My system currently uses dual Ultra/2 subs in sealed mode with the tune switch to Bypass (disables EQ curves but retains a 12 Hz 2nd order high pass). And the AS-EQ1 has my system flat to exactly 12 Hz, and it's ~3 dB down at 10 Hz.


Awesome :bigsmile:. Thanks Ed!!!


----------



## Patrick Nevin

jagman said:


> Cool. That's awesome that you hear such good improvment .
> 
> Do you know why your "after" plot drops off so steeply below 20Hz? It is interesting as your "before" plot had solid output to approximately 15Hz. "After" plots posted by other people don't seem to lose the low end response. I wonder why there is a difference... did you add a high pass filter at 20Hz?
> 
> Regardless it's nice to see that it is working so well for so many people. A quick, relatively easy fix for a pair of subs is a wonderful addition to the market.


Jagman everything is set the way it is supposed to be set according to the ASEQ1 manual on the sub. So I don't know what is causing the drop off at 20hz. I might remeasure it tonight and see what happens.

Thanks,
Patrick


----------



## spearmint

spearmint said:


> My apologies if this has been answered before, I have to admit I’ve not read this entire thread.
> 
> I’ve just ordered one of these units, but am wondering if the outputs are muted during power on/off?


I’ve got my unit now, Peter from DeepHz delivered it the other night. So I guess I can answer my own question tonight when I get it hooked up for a play.


----------



## malikarshad

Ed Mullen said:


> Please disconnect your left front speaker when the subwoofer tone is running and report the results again. Thanks.


I remeasured the sub using AVIA test tones without the Left speaker. The sub still reads about 74db. The left speaker reads 82db just before I switch it off. So still there is a differential of -8db.

I did a little experiment.
I disconnected the AS-EQ1 and connected the subwoofer directly to AVR.
I ran the AVR test tones and it correctly matched the sub level with the speakers at 72db.
I ran the AVIA test tone for the sub and now it correctly measure at 82db.

I've exhausted my attempts to find anything in my AVR that would attentuate the sub level. 

I have no clue now:sob: Can somebody please :help:


----------



## myc52002

Ed,

My misprint. They are the PB12 Ultra/2 tuned at 20hz. I asked about the roll off only because prior to the recalibrate I did not have that roll off but in either case it is not a concern, just curious. 

As for the LFE what I am referring to is there are the normal subwoofer outputs (which I connected the EQ1 to as required) and there is also a LFE output which in the menu system I can activate that output so that all recorded LFE signal (.1 channel) is directed to that output rather than mixed in with the normal subwoofer output. I disabled that output for the purpose of the calibration and with it enabled the MC12 sends a signal to that channel as well separately from the sub output. The question is whether the EQ1 cares (or needs) to have the LFE information that would normally be sent to most subwoofers to calibrate properly or does it expect that the LFE signal would be sent to the subwoofers in normal use and consider that, which in my case LFE signals are not output to the subwoofer. I do not believe that to be the case but most pre/pros do not have a separate LFE output. 

I understand the response about the mic setup. Thanks

Steve


----------



## Ed Mullen

malikarshad said:


> I remeasured the sub using AVIA test tones without the Left speaker. The sub still reads about 74db. The left speaker reads 82db just before I switch it off. So still there is a differential of -8db.
> 
> I did a little experiment.
> I disconnected the AS-EQ1 and connected the subwoofer directly to AVR.
> I ran the AVR test tones and it correctly matched the sub level with the speakers at 72db.
> I ran the AVIA test tone for the sub and now it correctly measure at 82db.
> 
> I've exhausted my attempts to find anything in my AVR that would attentuate the sub level.
> 
> I have no clue now:sob: Can somebody please :help:


In cases where a user cannot reconcile the level matching step, simply set the AS-EQ1 to 75 dB for the subwoofer and run the EQ routine and save the file to the AS-EQ1. Then level match your speakers and subwoofer by whatever other means (internal test tones, Avia, SPL meter) has successfully worked in the past.


----------



## Ed Mullen

myc52002 said:


> Ed,
> 
> My misprint. They are the PB12 Ultra/2 tuned at 20hz. I asked about the roll off only because prior to the recalibrate I did not have that roll off but in either case it is not a concern, just curious.
> 
> As for the LFE what I am referring to is there are the normal subwoofer outputs (which I connected the EQ1 to as required) and there is also a LFE output which in the menu system I can activate that output so that all recorded LFE signal (.1 channel) is directed to that output rather than mixed in with the normal subwoofer output. I disabled that output for the purpose of the calibration and with it enabled the MC12 sends a signal to that channel as well separately from the sub output. The question is whether the EQ1 cares (or needs) to have the LFE information that would normally be sent to most subwoofers to calibrate properly or does it expect that the LFE signal would be sent to the subwoofers in normal use and consider that, which in my case LFE signals are not output to the subwoofer. I do not believe that to be the case but most pre/pros do not have a separate LFE output.
> 
> I understand the response about the mic setup. Thanks
> 
> Steve


The Ultra/2 in the 20 Hz tune, should show a solid response to ~18-19 Hz before roll-off. The slope will be 36 dB/octave (24 acoustic/12 electronic). 

The AS-EQ1 does not need any information from the AVR to generate the EQ solution for the subwoofer. It pings the subwoofer directly and measures the FR and develops the solution, so it's a closed loop system.


----------



## malikarshad

Ed Mullen said:


> In cases where a user cannot reconcile the level matching step, simply set the AS-EQ1 to 75 dB for the subwoofer and run the EQ routine and save the file to the AS-EQ1. Then level match your speakers and subwoofer by whatever other means (internal test tones, Avia, SPL meter) has successfully worked in the past.


Thanks Ed for your patience to help me thru this. I'm going nuts resolving this:wits-end:. For the past few days I have been up very late at night to figure this out.

Last night I tested the SubEQ "Level Check" with the AS-EQ1 mic using the AVR internal test tones & AVIA test tone and it reiterates the same result. I tried measuring using both Left and Right Speakers and also tried various inputs on the AVR. The speaker level and sub level was off by about -8db to -6db. But when I go to Level Matching step in Auto EQ and measure the sub level it matches correctly.

I'll try matching the sub level using internal test tones. *But if I do that won't I be running the sub hotter than what AS-EQ1 suggested trim level. I want to make sure it won't screw up the EQed response:huh:*


----------



## Ed Mullen

malikarshad said:


> Thanks Ed for your patience to help me thru this. I'm going nuts resolving this:wits-end:. For the past few days I have been up very late at night to figure this out.
> 
> Last night I tested the SubEQ "Level Check" with the AS-EQ1 mic using the AVR internal test tones & AVIA test tone and it reiterates the same result. I tried measuring using both Left and Right Speakers and also tried various inputs on the AVR. The speaker level and sub level was off by about -8db to -6db. But when I go to Level Matching step in Auto EQ and measure the sub level it matches correctly.
> 
> I'll try matching the sub level using internal test tones. *But if I do that won't I be running the sub hotter than what AS-EQ1 suggested trim level. I want to make sure it won't screw up the EQed response:huh:*


The AS-EQ1 needs 75 dB (per its own mic and software application) to develop the EQ solution without encountering clipping/headroom problems in the digital domain. Once the EQ solution has been properly developed, the subwoofer can be run hotter or cooler than the speakers, as per the preference of the user. 

The level matching section was designed to help the user obtain the proper relative calibration level between the speakers and the subwoofer. For whatever reason, it's not working well for you, so please level match the speakers and the subwoofer using whatever method has been successful for you in the past. 

If you use the RS meter, take into account that it reads ~2-3 dB low on the subwoofer test tone, due to its C-weighted filter. So 73 dB on the RS meter for the subwoofer tone is actually 75-76 dB actual.


----------



## malikarshad

Ed Mullen said:


> If you use the RS meter, take into account that it reads ~2-3 dB low on the subwoofer test tone, due to its C-weighted filter. So 73 dB on the RS meter for the subwoofer tone is actually 75-76 dB actual.


How about if I use the AS-EQ1 mic with SubEQ "Level Check"? Does it report the level accurately.

RS meter is sometimes difficult to check Sub level as the needle keeps on moving by few dbs.

One thing I noticed about "Level Check" on SubEQ is that I can only take measurement with MultEQ on. 
Its not a big deal though I was curious to check level with MultEQ off and on but it keeps turning it on.


----------



## Ed Mullen

malikarshad said:


> How about if I use the AS-EQ1 mic with SubEQ "Level Check"? Does it report the level accurately.
> 
> RS meter is sometimes difficult to check Sub level as the needle keeps on moving by few dbs.
> 
> One thing I noticed about "Level Check" on SubEQ is that I can only take measurement with MultEQ on.
> Its not a big deal though I was curious to check level with MultEQ off and on but it keeps turning it on.


The AS-EQ1 is not designed to be an "SPL meter" per se. Meaning that the absolute SPL readings it generates are fairly close to absolute, but you can expect minor deviations comparing this unit to the RS meter (hardly a reference standard in its own right) or to another device like an auto-EQ AVR with its own mic. 

The most important things is level matching the speaker and the subwoofer, and for some reason you are not having good luck with the AS-EQ1 compared to other references you are using (like Avia and your RS meter). Without actually being there, I have no idea where the problem lies with your level matching disparity. So if you have had success in the past with Avia and the SPL meter and feel that provides subjectively good results, then stick with that method. 

You can avoid most of the needle jumpig on the RS meter by setting the speed to Slow, and also setting the dB scale to the next higher level. So on the 80 scale, 75 dB would be -5. It will fluctuate far less in the negative range of the meter than in the postive range.


----------



## spearmint

If anyone is interested I've posted some early impressions here


----------



## Lordoftherings

Ed Mullen said:


> My system currently uses dual Ultra/2 subs in sealed mode with the tune switch to Bypass (disables EQ curves but retains a 12 Hz 2nd order high pass). And the AS-EQ1 has my system flat to exactly 12 Hz, and it's ~3 dB down at 10 Hz.


Hi Ed,

:wow: That is AWESOME! :fireworks2:

Bob


----------



## Patrick Nevin

Well after moving my Epik Castle to face the room this is what type of a response I got.

Before








After








I didn't like that so I turned the sub back facing the wall. I am wondering how I can get the response lower for the Castle. I have it switched to LFE and the frequency knob all the way up to 150hz. I know the Castle is tuned to 19 hz. Any Ideas?


----------



## Timoxx4

Hi ED,

I am very interested in this little unit for my HT which consists of 4 12 subs that are IB and located in pairs in two separate manifolds in the floor below my mains.

I am just wondering what i might be able to expect from it considering my in room frequency response which is below here. This is before any EQ and is just the subs only, no mains.










Do you think my low end below 20hz will remain intact and not be rolled off too early ?

This is my room as it currently sits now after EQ and is as good as i can get it. I also have a house curve on it in this graph and my mains on aswell.










I guess i am just a little unsure how a flat FR will sound and i am a little scared it might sound a bit weak to my ears as i do like a lot of low end oomph.

Thanks for any enlightenment on the subject,
Tim.


----------



## vdorta

Ed, please help with this.

I just got my SVS AS-EQ1. I installed Sub EQ and set the AS-EQ1 up following the manual. I have a stereo system with preamplifier, electronic crossover, amplifier and two subwoofers (connected dual discrete in to dual discrete out, plus the satellites' left channel connected to Sat Center/Left). I have checked all connections and everything seems to be OK.

I have two problems:

1. When I start Sub EQ, it is OFF; I have to click MultEQ for it to go ON (I don't know if this is relevant). When I click on Start Sub EQ Calibration, the status light changes from green to red and stays red. On the next screen (Channel Configuration) it changes to a reddish yellow and stays yellow throughout. I tried uninstalling and reinstalling Audyssey Sub EQ to no avail.

2. When level matching, both subwoofers get easily matched at 75dB with the AS-EQ1 noise sweep but the satellites do not go above 47dB no matter what I adjust and there is no noise coming from them. When I tried Measurement, it says the satellites weren't detected, of course.

Thanks.


----------



## Doug McBride

vdorta said:


> Ed, please help with this.
> 
> I just got my SVS AS-EQ1. I installed Sub EQ and set the AS-EQ1 up following the manual. I have a stereo system with preamplifier, electronic crossover, amplifier and two subwoofers (connected dual discrete in to dual discrete out, plus the satellites' left channel connected to Sat Center/Left). I have checked all connections and everything seems to be OK.
> 
> I have two problems:
> 
> 1. The status light changes from green to red as soon as I click on Channel Configuration and stays red throughout. I tried uninstalling and reinstalling Audyssey Sub EQ to no avail.
> 
> 2. When level matching, both subwoofers get easily matched at 75dB with the AS-EQ1 noise sweep but the satellites do not go above 47dB no matter what I adjust and there is no noise coming from them.
> 
> Thanks.


Hi - I'm not Ed but I'll help start the troubleshooting process if you like.

1. The light will go Red as soon as you start the config process and stay red until you permanently save your filters at least once (trying to remember as it only happens once) after taking at least three measurements. So, if you did not go that far in the calibration process, that could be one explanation.

2. Have you tried running the Sat Out from the AS-EQ1 into another input on your Pre/Pro to see if you get tone? Alternatively have you tried another audio source (cd/dvd player, etc.) on the same pre/pro input to see if you are getting any audio? This will isolate the AS-EQ1 from the pre/pro for troubleshooting purposes.

Also, curious as to why you've selected Dual Discrete for channel configuration. Do you have stereo sub outputs on your pre/pro?

Doug


----------



## vdorta

Doug McBride said:


> Hi - I'm not Ed but I'll help start the troubleshooting process if you like.
> 
> 1. The light will go Red as soon as you start the config process and stay red until you permanently save your filters at least once (trying to remember as it only happens once) after taking at least three measurements. So, if you did not go that far in the calibration process, that could be one explanation.
> 
> 2. Have you tried running the Sat Out from the AS-EQ1 into another input on your Pre/Pro to see if you get tone? Alternatively have you tried another audio source (cd/dvd player, etc.) on the same pre/pro input to see if you are getting any audio? This will isolate the AS-EQ1 from the pre/pro for troubleshooting purposes.
> 
> Also, curious as to why you've selected Dual Discrete for channel configuration. Do you have stereo sub outputs on your pre/pro?
> 
> Doug


Doug, thanks for your quick and helpful reply.

1. I now understand the reason for the red light staying ON.

2. I tried your suggestion and connected the Sat out directly to the preamplifier and it worked! It seems the crossover has a fixed volume output.

3. My channel configuration is due to the fact that I have small stand-mounted speakers crossed over at 80Hz to a pair of stereo subwoofers, each placed close to the speakers. If I understand it well, the one IN to two OUT configuration would give me mono bass from the two subwoofers, something I don't want, but I am open to suggestions.

4. the detection results from 8 measurements give me 19 feet subwoofer distance for both. The measured distance is only 9 feet. Also, the satellite crossover shows as 120Hz. I don't have a way to manually enter that information into my preamplifier (a simple stereo pre), so I hope the AS-EQ1 knows what it's doing.


----------



## Doug McBride

vdorta said:


> Doug, thanks for your quick and helpful reply.
> 
> 1. I now understand the reason for the red light staying ON.
> 
> 2. I tried your suggestion and connected the Sat out directly to the preamplifier and it worked! It seems the crossover has a fixed volume output.
> 
> 3. My channel configuration is due to the fact that I have small stand-mounted speakers crossed over at 80Hz to a pair of stereo subwoofers, each placed close to the speakers. If I understand it well, the one IN to two OUT configuration would give me mono bass from the two subwoofers, something I don't want, but I am open to suggestions.
> 
> 4. the detection results from 8 measurements give me 19 feet subwoofer distance for both. The measured distance is only 9 feet. Also, the satellite crossover shows as 120Hz. I don't have a way to manually enter that information into my preamplifier (a simple stereo pre), so I hope the AS-EQ1 knows what it's doing.


Good stuff!

As far as using Dual Discrete, your use case is exactly why that mode was implemented. I just wanted to make sure that was your intended application. For normal mono-sub use with HT and multiple subs, the One In to Two Out is a better choice.

The AS-EQ1 adds roughly 8.5ms of latency to the mix and at roughly 1ms per foot, adds about 8.5 feet to your sub distance. Sounds like you are in the ballpark.

As far as the crossover frequency goes, as long as you are comfortable with 80Hz relative to the capabilities of your speakers and the Sats/Subs blend nicely you should be fine.

Sounds like you're in business. Let us know how it sounds.

Doug


----------



## malikarshad

Ed Mullen said:


> The AS-EQ1 needs 75 dB (per its own mic and software application) to develop the EQ solution without encountering clipping/headroom problems in the digital domain. Once the EQ solution has been properly developed, the subwoofer can be run hotter or cooler than the speakers, as per the preference of the user.
> 
> The level matching section was designed to help the user obtain the proper relative calibration level between the speakers and the subwoofer. For whatever reason, it's not working well for you, so please level match the speakers and the subwoofer using whatever method has been successful for you in the past.
> 
> If you use the RS meter, take into account that it reads ~2-3 dB low on the subwoofer test tone, due to its C-weighted filter. So 73 dB on the RS meter for the subwoofer tone is actually 75-76 dB actual.


Finally I've figured out the problem :whew: It's so embarassing to mention:hide: but having troubled everybody so much I feel obligated to tell. I was adding the trim level -ve instead of +ve and the difference in level was exactly the different between its -ve and +ve value.
Now everything matches perfectly and most of all the EQed sound is awesome. Even though before and after REW graphs looks alike it sounds much better. I think graph does not capture all the details that is experienced after adding AS-EQ1.
I did a demo with Transfomers BD and its simply :wow:
Thanks every body for your help and patience and especillay I owe an apology for this simple mistake.

I'm a happy camper now:yay:

Green Line after AS-EQ1
Red Line before with Audyssey calibration.


----------



## vdorta

Doug McBride said:


> Good stuff!
> 
> Sounds like you're in business. Let us know how it sounds.
> 
> Doug


Magnificent! The sound has improved across the board, even in the midrange. I can't upload the before-after graphs, but the response of both subwoofers is now flat with just a narrow 4dB trough at 38Hz. I love it!


----------



## Lordoftherings

I've been following this thread from the very beginning, and I must say, that is one, if not the most interesting and educative thread at the Shack.

Thanks in particular to the very informative and helpful Mr. Ed Mullen. 

And also to all participant members for their dedicative mutual respect.

I am learning quite a lot and it's good food for Audio enrichment.

Best regards,

Bob


----------



## Doug McBride

AS-EQ1 FAQs are up:

http://svsound.com/as-eq1/as-eq1_subeq_faq.pdf

Doug


----------



## Lordoftherings

Thanks Doug for the link, any additional information about the AS-EQ1 SubEQ is always welcome. :T

Bob


----------



## Rookie100fun

Hi Ed & Doug,

If I play 3 subwoofers with the AS-EQ1, what is your advise?

Many thanks!


----------



## Doug McBride

Rookie100fun said:


> Hi Ed & Doug,
> 
> If I play 3 subwoofers with the AS-EQ1, what is your advise?
> 
> Many thanks!


Be happy to help. Can you tell us more about your room and subs? How large is your room and where are the subs placed? What brand and model are your subs?

What we want to do is determine which two subs should be combined and what level they should be set at. If the subs are all the same, level setting is easier since they all have the same performance characteristics. If you have a mixed bag, we need to do a little analysis to determine the relative levels each subs should be set at to make sure you have plenty of headroom and don't push any of them past their limits while the other loaf.

Thanks,

Doug


----------



## Texxen

I've just received my AS-EQ1 and got a few questions. Maybe Ed or Doug can help me.

1) Auto EQ Assist should be set to "On" only if I use the avr's mic and test tone to calibrate the system? My Avr is Yammy. I calibrate my system with avr's test tone and SPL meter, and never use the avr's mics and built-in YPAO. In my case, can I just set Auto EQ assist to "off" and proceed directly to the Level Matching section?

2) On the level matching screen, there is a part in the little guide section on the left that says;

"Disable the AVR or Pre/Pro bass management crossover by setting the selected satellite speaker to Large or Full Range."

My speakers are set to "Small", LFE set to "Subwoofer", and Crossover set to "80Hz". Do I need to change the speakers to "Large" according to the guide? If so, at what point in the test do I change the speakers back to "Small"? I tried using both options with the result below;

2.1) When I set the speaker to Large and run AS-EQ1, the end result asked me to set my speakers to Large. 
2.2) When I leave my setting as is (Speakers = small, Crossover = 80Hz) and run the AS-EQ1, the end result asked me to set my speakers to Small with a crossover of 40Hz. 

Your help will be much appreciated :bigsmile:


----------



## Timoxx4

I am going to get one of these units in the second batch and i have the same questions as Texxen above.

I also have a Yamaha AVR (3800) and i too do not use the built in YPAO. So any help on how one would go about setting it up and using it with the EQ1 would be great here too.


----------



## Doug McBride

Texxen said:


> I've just received my AS-EQ1 and got a few questions. Maybe Ed or Doug can help me.
> 
> 1) Auto EQ Assist should be set to "On" only if I use the avr's mic and test tone to calibrate the system? My Avr is Yammy. I calibrate my system with avr's test tone and SPL meter, and never use the avr's mics and built-in YPAO. In my case, can I just set Auto EQ assist to "off" and proceed directly to the Level Matching section?
> 
> 2) On the level matching screen, there is a part in the little guide section on the left that says;
> 
> "Disable the AVR or Pre/Pro bass management crossover by setting the selected satellite speaker to Large or Full Range."
> 
> My speakers are set to "Small", LFE set to "Subwoofer", and Crossover set to "80Hz". Do I need to change the speakers to "Large" according to the guide? If so, at what point in the test do I change the speakers back to "Small"? I tried using both options with the result below;
> 
> 2.1) When I set the speaker to Large and run AS-EQ1, the end result asked me to set my speakers to Large.
> 2.2) When I leave my setting as is (Speakers = small, Crossover = 80Hz) and run the AS-EQ1, the end result asked me to set my speakers to Small with a crossover of 40Hz.
> 
> Your help will be much appreciated :bigsmile:


1) That is correct.

2) Were you using a multi-channel analog input for the "Sat Out" of the AS-EQ1? I only ask because most AVRs do not apply any bass management/DSP to these inputs so it's the same as setting speakers to "large". 

In any case, SVS always recommends setting your speakers to "small" and your crossover at a frequency commensurate with the capabilities of your speakers and that will provide good blending of your sub(s) and speakers, letting the sub(s) handle most of the low frequencies since that is what they were designed to do. If you've been happy with your 80Hz crossover, that's a great place to have it.

On another note, how does you room sound now you are using the AS-EQ1? Notice any difference?

Doug


----------



## Texxen

Thank you for a speedy reply, Doug.

So if I actually connect the AS-EQ1 "sat out" to my avr's analog multi-channel input, I can just leave my avr setting as "small, subwoofer, 80Hz" throughout the test and don't have to set it to Large as per the guide? 

I did connect the AS-EQ1 "Sat Out" to my avr's multi-channel input. But the noob question is how do I tell if it's the analog or digital? :dunno: I'm a bit of HT noob  

Also, follow on from your reply, let say at the end of the calibration, the AS-EQ1 still recommends the cross over at 40Hz. If I set my AVR to the usual 80Hz instead of AS-EQ1's recommended 40hz, wouldn't that caused any anomaly. ie. wouldn't the overall end result be different that what it really should be ? (since the AS-EQ1 has probably applied its adjustment for the 40Hz crossover environment with the assumption that I will be using the recommended 40Hz crossover, but somehow I decided to stick with my original crossover of 80Hz instead) ?

In regard to how my room sounds now, would you believe I haven't tried it out yet? :hide: I was gonna wait for your reply before I finalize it  I did have a look at the graph though. It's not a total flat line but close to that. The original line was like a sine wave so overall I was very impressed :yay2:


----------



## janly

I got my AS-EQ1 in house last week and tried to run it yesterday. My setup are Avantgarde Trio Omega speakers with Avantgarde large Basshorn. It is these basshorn I want to use the AS-EQ1 on. This is a 2-channel setup, and I use an Cary tube preamp that the basshorn get it's signal from. The signal are stereo. I run the AS-EQ1 as Dual discrete IN to dual discrete OUT and has set the subwoofers SPL to 75 dB in the SubEQ application before calibrating. After calibrating the SUB A and SUB B (I can not calibrate with "satelites" in this setup) I choose the Transfer to AS-EQ1 button. Then my problem occurs, I can't view the result. If I click on "View results" I get an error in the browser saying that it can't find the document. I have searched for the html document, and it don't exist. I can't Create HTML Certificate Document either. So it seems that the AS-EQ1 doesn't generate any result to view.

The plan is to equalize the basshorn and calibrate the speaker and subwoofer channel levels using an alternate source later.

Does someone know of this problem??

Janly


----------



## Doug McBride

janly said:


> I got my AS-EQ1 in house last week and tried to run it yesterday. My setup are Avantgarde Trio Omega speakers with Avantgarde large Basshorn. It is these basshorn I want to use the AS-EQ1 on. This is a 2-channel setup, and I use an Cary tube preamp that the basshorn get it's signal from. The signal are stereo. I run the AS-EQ1 as Dual discrete IN to dual discrete OUT and has set the subwoofers SPL to 75 dB in the SubEQ application before calibrating. After calibrating the SUB A and SUB B (I can not calibrate with "satelites" in this setup) I choose the Transfer to AS-EQ1 button. Then my problem occurs, I can't view the result. If I click on "View results" I get an error in the browser saying that it can't find the document. I have searched for the html document, and it don't exist. I can't Create HTML Certificate Document either. So it seems that the AS-EQ1 doesn't generate any result to view.
> 
> The plan is to equalize the basshorn and calibrate the speaker and subwoofer channel levels using an alternate source later.
> 
> Does someone know of this problem??
> 
> Janly


Hi Janly - if you are running Vista, you are not the first to report this. We think we've narrowed it down to SubEQ running on some localized versions of Vista (does not affect XP as far as we can tell). This has been reported to Audyssey and they have confirmed it is fixed in the next version of the software which is tentatively scheduled for later in July.

The problem is that the subdirectory in C:\Program Files\Audyssey Labs\Audyssey SubEQ 3.1 called certOutput does not get created at the time you are finishing your measurements in SubEQ and preparing to graph them.

We've been looking for a user to help us test a workaround to see if it has any effect. If you want to try it and report back that would be cool:

1. Change locale to US 
(see here: http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/help/63fe39ac-f098-4322-ba60-8210af13464d1033.mspx)

2. Re-run measurements

3. See if graphs get created in certOutput (will show in your browser and you will have the certOutput subdirectory)

4. If not, uninstall SubEQ, re-install and re-measure

5. If after 4. and it works, try resetting locale to where it is normally set and re-measure using a different number of measurement positions so we can see if the new measurements get graphed (look on graph output for number of positions as a way to check different measurement runs).


Thanks,

Doug


----------



## Doug McBride

Texxen said:


> Thank you for a speedy reply, Doug.
> 
> So if I actually connect the AS-EQ1 "sat out" to my avr's analog multi-channel input, I can just leave my avr setting as "small, subwoofer, 80Hz" throughout the test and don't have to set it to Large as per the guide?
> 
> I did connect the AS-EQ1 "Sat Out" to my avr's multi-channel input. But the noob question is how do I tell if it's the analog or digital? :dunno: I'm a bit of HT noob
> 
> Also, follow on from your reply, let say at the end of the calibration, the AS-EQ1 still recommends the cross over at 40Hz. If I set my AVR to the usual 80Hz instead of AS-EQ1's recommended 40hz, wouldn't that caused any anomaly. ie. wouldn't the overall end result be different that what it really should be ? (since the AS-EQ1 has probably applied its adjustment for the 40Hz crossover environment with the assumption that I will be using the recommended 40Hz crossover, but somehow I decided to stick with my original crossover of 80Hz instead) ?
> 
> In regard to how my room sounds now, would you believe I haven't tried it out yet? :hide: I was gonna wait for your reply before I finalize it  I did have a look at the graph though. It's not a total flat line but close to that. The original line was like a sine wave so overall I was very impressed :yay2:


All good questions.

If you check your manual where it discusses the analog multi-channel inputs, it will probably say you cannot apply any DSP modes to that input, and may even say there is no bass management performed (most of the units manuals I've looked at are pretty indirect - vague if you will - on the topic). If there is no bass management being performed on that input, that's the same as setting your speakers to "Large". If no digital processing is done on that input, it will be totally analog.

What kind of speakers do you have? Can you look up the specs and tell me what your response is rated at at the -3dB point? It may say something like "Frequency Response +/-3dB" and then give a range.

Let me know if, after using the Multi-channel inputs and providing the specs on your speakers if SubEQ still recommends a crossover as opposed to "Large".

Doug


----------



## Texxen

Hi Doug,

My speaker is Paradigm Monitor series. I couldn't find the FR at +/-3dB on the spec sheet. All I could find is this;

FRONT SPEAKERS (http://www.paradigm.com/en/paradigm/speaker_only-specification-17-1-2-4.paradigm)
Frequency Response:
On-Axis ±2 dB from 54 Hz - 20 kHz 
30° Off-Axis ±2 dB from 54 Hz - 15 kHz

CENTER (http://www.paradigm.com/en/paradigm/speaker_only-specification-7-1-3-4.paradigm)
Frequency Response:
On-Axis ±2 dB from 80 Hz - 20 kHz 
30° Off-Axis ±2 dB from 80 Hz - 17 kHz

REARs are some 10 yrs old JBL Floorstanding. I can not find the spec for it 

SUB: PB13-Ultra


----------



## janly

Doug McBride said:


> Hi Janly - if you are running Vista, you are not the first to report this. We think we've narrowed it down to SubEQ running on some localized versions of Vista (does not affect XP as far as we can tell). This has been reported to Audyssey and they have confirmed it is fixed in the next version of the software which is tentatively scheduled for later in July.
> 
> The problem is that the subdirectory in C:\Program Files\Audyssey Labs\Audyssey SubEQ 3.1 called certOutput does not get created at the time you are finishing your measurements in SubEQ and preparing to graph them.
> 
> We've been looking for a user to help us test a workaround to see if it has any effect. If you want to try it and report back that would be cool:
> 
> 1. Change locale to US
> (see here:
> 
> 2. Re-run measurements
> 
> 3. See if graphs get created in certOutput (will show in your browser and you will have the certOutput subdirectory)
> 
> 4. If not, uninstall SubEQ, re-install and re-measure
> 
> 5. If after 4. and it works, try resetting locale to where it is normally set and re-measure using a different number of measurement positions so we can see if the new measurements get graphed (look on graph output for number of positions as a way to check different measurement runs).
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Doug


Hi Doug, and thank you for your help! It's correct - I run the SubQ on a Vista 32 PC. I changed the locale to US, restarted the computer, started the Audyssey application and ran the measurements. A document did not get created in certOutput. I then uninstalled SubEQ, re-installed it and re-measured. Then it worked and I got the results :bigsmile:

I did not have the time to play much music to hear the result, but the first impression was a tighter and cleaner bass. 

Thanks,
Janly


----------



## Doug McBride

janly said:


> Hi Doug, and thank you for your help! It's correct - I run the SubEQ on a Vista 32 PC. I changed the locale to US, restarted the computer, started the Audyssey application and ran the measurements. A document did not get created in certOutput. I then uninstalled SubEQ, re-installed it and re-measured. Then it worked and I got the results :bigsmile:
> 
> I did not have the time to play much music to hear the result, but the first impression was a tighter and cleaner bass.
> 
> Thanks,
> Janly


Janly - thanks much for trying this and reporting back your findings! We'll make sure we share this with others who are having the same problem.

One more question - did you set your locale back to Norway to see if it still worked?

Thanks again for your help. I think after you've had a chance to listen for a while you'll be able to notice some interesting differences.

Cheers,

Doug


----------



## Ed Mullen

Texxen said:


> Thank you for a speedy reply, Doug.
> 
> So if I actually connect the AS-EQ1 "sat out" to my avr's analog multi-channel input, I can just leave my avr setting as "small, subwoofer, 80Hz" throughout the test and don't have to set it to Large as per the guide?
> 
> I did connect the AS-EQ1 "Sat Out" to my avr's multi-channel input. But the noob question is how do I tell if it's the analog or digital? :dunno: I'm a bit of HT noob
> 
> Also, follow on from your reply, let say at the end of the calibration, the AS-EQ1 still recommends the cross over at 40Hz. If I set my AVR to the usual 80Hz instead of AS-EQ1's recommended 40hz, wouldn't that caused any anomaly. ie. wouldn't the overall end result be different that what it really should be ? (since the AS-EQ1 has probably applied its adjustment for the 40Hz crossover environment with the assumption that I will be using the recommended 40Hz crossover, but somehow I decided to stick with my original crossover of 80Hz instead) ?
> 
> In regard to how my room sounds now, would you believe I haven't tried it out yet? :hide: I was gonna wait for your reply before I finalize it  I did have a look at the graph though. It's not a total flat line but close to that. The original line was like a sine wave so overall I was very impressed :yay2:


Hi Tex:

The multi-channel inputs on your AVR are analog. Usually they do not have a bass management function, but some advanced AVRs do have BM on the analog inputs, so just be sure to disable that if it exists. 

The reason to disable any BM on the analog inputs is two-fold: 1) so the test tone SPL is accurate, and 2) so the AS-EQ1 can accurately detect the LF limit of the speaker. 

Regardless of the XO you choose for the speakers, the AS-EQ1 will always target a flat response for the subwoofer to as high a frequency as possible. This will not change no matter what XO you select for the speakers. The upper limit of the AS-EQ1 is typically when it encounters an internal low-pass in the subwoofer amp or the woofer simply starts to tail-off. There is an upper FR limit in the AS-EQ1, but it's much higher than any subwoofer will ever normally play, so the subwoofer itself is always the limiting factor in the upper FR bandwidth. 

So don't worry about selecting an XO which is different than the AS-EQ1 recommends for any given speaker; it won't affect the subwoofer performance or FR at all. For your speakers, I'd pick 80-100 Hz for the center and 60-80 Hz for the mains. If you only have a global XO, then let the smallest (i.e., least bass-capable) speaker dictate your global XO.


----------



## nathometheatre

Doug McBride said:


> In any case, SVS always recommends setting your speakers to "small" and your crossover at a frequency commensurate with the capabilities of your speakers and that will provide good blending of your sub(s) and speakers, letting the sub(s) handle most of the low frequencies since that is what they were designed to do. If you've been happy with your 80Hz crossover, that's a great place to have it.
> Doug


Doug,
I agree with your recommendations for settings mentioned above. That being said, I have the Denon avr-4308ci, and just did a calibration for four seating areas using the Audyssey MultEQ-XT mic that came with the receiver. My front 3 speakers are Klipsch RF,RC-7 series, and after the calibration was done calculating everything, it had my front 3 set to large, and the X-Over set @ 40Hz. I've never had my sub set that low before. Do you still agree that i should reset them to small, and set my X-Over back to 80Hz? I have a PB12/Plus2 (best sub I've ever owned by far), so I want to make sure I'm getting the maximum performance out of my SVS. Thanks, Kev


----------



## Texxen

Ed Mullen said:


> Hi Tex:
> 
> The multi-channel inputs on your AVR are analog. Usually they do not have a bass management function, but some advanced AVRs do have BM on the analog inputs, so just be sure to disable that if it exists.
> 
> The reason to disable any BM on the analog inputs is two-fold: 1) so the test tone SPL is accurate, and 2) so the AS-EQ1 can accurately detect the LF limit of the speaker.
> 
> Regardless of the XO you choose for the speakers, the AS-EQ1 will always target a flat response for the subwoofer to as high a frequency as possible. This will not change no matter what XO you select for the speakers. The upper limit of the AS-EQ1 is typically when it encounters an internal low-pass in the subwoofer amp or the woofer simply starts to tail-off. There is an upper FR limit in the AS-EQ1, but it's much higher than any subwoofer will ever normally play, so the subwoofer itself is always the limiting factor in the upper FR bandwidth.
> 
> So don't worry about selecting an XO which is different than the AS-EQ1 recommends for any given speaker; it won't affect the subwoofer performance or FR at all. For your speakers, I'd pick 80-100 Hz for the center and 60-80 Hz for the mains. If you only have a global XO, then let the smallest (i.e., least bass-capable) speaker dictate your global XO.


Thank you for the explanation, Ed. Now I can finalize my calibration


----------



## Ed Mullen

Texxen said:


> Thank you for the explanation, Ed. Now I can finalize my calibration


You are most welcome. 

Just to be clear, the fact that the AS-EQ1 recommends a certain XO for a speaker channel will not alter its inherent/native EQ solution for the subwoofer. It always targets a flat FR for the subwoofer to as high a frequency as possible (usually the upper limits of the sub amp or the woofer). 

Naturally, selecting a XO for the speaker channels will high pass the speakers and will also low pass the subwoofer at the same frequency. This low pass occurs upstream of the AS-EQ1, as intended.


----------



## rmk

Doug McBride (SVS’s Software Hired Gun and all around good guy) was kind enough to bring his AS-EQ1 by for an in-home demo the other day. Doug's living close by made this easy and I thank Doug and SVS (Ron and Ed) for making this possible. Also joining us was fellow Shakster Randy (ransac).

The idea was to compare the AS-EQ1 to my Velodyne SMS-1 from an overall subjective sound quality standpoint. My system is made up of dual Danley TH-SPUD subs, JTR Triple 12LF LCR speakers, Revel in-wall surrounds with an Integra SSP. A Sunfire TGA 400/7 powers the speakers and a QSC pro audio amp drives the Danley Subs. Unfortunately due to my setup and time constraints we were not able to directly (A/B) compare the SMS-1 to the AS-EQ1. Instead, we compared it (the AS-EQ1) to no EQ. We also disengaged the Audyssey in my Integra so as not to have over lapping (dueling Audyssey’s). We started off by running though some music selections that included bass heavy passages and moved on to some familiar DVD and Bluray movie scenes.

With my treated dedicated room the before system sounded pretty good (to me anyway) and I admit I was skeptical that there would be a significant advantage in using the AS-EQ1 but the early reports were so positive I decided that I had to hear it in my room. The funny thing is that Doug was of a like mind. I think we were both surprised at the noticeable difference that the AS-EQ1 made to the LFE channel in my system especially with music.

Onto the demo, we played music tracks from the bass heavy Boney James, Sweet Thing CD and kept to that disk in order or better hear the differences from EQ to no EQ on the LFE track. To be fair, I am very familiar with this disk while Doug and Randy were hearing it for the first time but we all were all able to hear the differences that Audyssey made to the music. With music, the less is more Audyssey theory pans out very nicely. I believe we were unanimous in feeling that the taming down of the low bass made the mid range bass and hence the music more enjoyable (listenable) than with no EQ applied. The bass seemed over extended with no EQ but the AS-EQ1 brought it under control and so each note was easily distinguished.

With movies, the Audyssey EQ seemed to cut much more of the impact out of bass intense passages. We used the sound canon scene from The Incredible Hulk (much to Doug’s amusement) as the tester here. Both Randy and I noticed that the sound canons had been pretty effectively neutered by Audyssey while other bass parts of that scene maintained their impact and slam. My impression was that Audyssey was doing to the LFE channel what I initially though it did to the higher frequencies when I use the Audyssey Multi EQ in my Integra SSP i.e. over treating the bass response.

As it turns out Audyssey does indeed flatten out the room response. The Audyssey graph showed a dramatic difference between before and after graphs. To validate this, we put up the Velodyne SMS-1 real time display showing the rooms FR at various listening positions using the Velo mic. This experiment also showed the large differences in graphed response that slight mic movements made across my HT seating area. For me even more interesting was how these graphs did not necessarily correlate to significant changes in the sound in moving from seat to seat. I believe that is due to a fairly good native (no EQ) bass response across my seating area aided by dual subs, room treatments and the room itself. Whatever Audyssey does right for music, seems to lessen the impact I have become acoustomecd for movies. After running the AS-EQ1, it recommended increasing the LFE trim by 12db over the previous SMS-1 trim setting. I can't help but wonder if others who have the unit have had the similar delta with the LFE trim. While increasing the LFE channel trim helped with movies, I can't help but wonder why this is necessary. In re-setting my system later in the day, I was nearly blown out of the room by the sub channel when re-running the level settings. It required a 12db cut to get things back in sync.

While I could hear a difference with Audyssey engaged, it was subtle in both a positive and negative sense. In many untreated or open room with lots of hard surfaces I’m sure the AS-EQ1 will work wonders. In my room there was a difference but it was less dramatic.

I plan on getting an AS-EQ1 and hope to do an A/B test like we were able to do with the AS-EQ1 on and off testing today. I would also like to spend more time tweaking and playing with the levels and also setup the two Audyssey’s together as recommended by both SVS and Audyssey. The AS-EQ1 is very cool technology and just what a crazy hobbyist like me needs to while away all those hours I could be spending outside doing more healthy or productive things:nerd:.


Here are the before and after graphs of my subs

First, the separate before/after graphs









Then the combined response before/after


----------



## myc52002

Rob, I couldn't agree more with your assessments. I have had mine for a couple of weeks now and have tried several different setups including trim level changes etc. I too found that with music it cleaned up things very nicely but I seemed to have lost some of the impact on movies. I found a +10 trim made a world of difference on movies. I still will not part with the unit because it does much very right. I am going to pursue more room treatment because I do have a significant null problem (non-eq'd) between 30-40hz and even though the EQ! does a really nice job of helping that, I can't help but believe better treatment will help.


----------



## Doug McBride

nathometheatre said:


> Doug,
> I agree with your recommendations for settings mentioned above. That being said, I have the Denon avr-4308ci, and just did a calibration for four seating areas using the Audyssey MultEQ-XT mic that came with the receiver. My front 3 speakers are Klipsch RF,RC-7 series, and after the calibration was done calculating everything, it had my front 3 set to large, and the X-Over set @ 40Hz. I've never had my sub set that low before. Do you still agree that i should reset them to small, and set my X-Over back to 80Hz? I have a PB12/Plus2 (best sub I've ever owned by far), so I want to make sure I'm getting the maximum performance out of my SVS. Thanks, Kev


Hi Kevin - my personal opinion is "yes". Even the best towers will run out of gas in the lower ranges of their design center, especially for HT use. The design center for subs is primarily 120Hz and below and they do a great job there. I also think relieving the mains from the lower octaves also leaves more headroom in the amps hence increasing dynamic range.

Through observation, it seems that most AVR and Pre/Pro auto cal systems look to see if there is any usable output below 40Hz, and if so, recommend "large". Where they work well in my opinion is when the satellites are less capable of playing low, and the recommended crossover might be more appropriate. Also, remember these auto cal systems (minus the room EQ) are really meant to help the novice get somewhat close to a proper setup whereas before - if they even bothered - would be setting channel trims by ear and running speakers whose -3dB point is 90Hz as large...

I think the 40Hz crossover you mentioned above is for the sub? If you set your speakers to "small", your Denon will be handling the crossover at your desired set point so the sub crossover should be defeated using the Defeat switch on the plate amp.

Doug


----------



## azjimmy

Hi,
I've been reading this thread for the last few days, but I don't recall seeing any waterfall/impulse graphs to show how AS-EQ1 handles tough "room modes" and ringing. Any takers?


----------



## SAY IT LOUD

You can get the AS-EQ1 SubEQ from DEEP HZ Audio CALL 0434 550 782 but you will pay AU$1,499


----------



## Ed Mullen

azjimmy said:


> Hi,
> I've been reading this thread for the last few days, but I don't recall seeing any waterfall/impulse graphs to show how AS-EQ1 handles tough "room modes" and ringing. Any takers?


The AS-EQ1 generates an impulse response and does indeed look at the time domain component (ringing profile) of the room when it builds the minimum phase FIR filter solution, as opposed to just looking at the magnitude response. 

The AS-EQ1 impulse duration is easily long enough to capture all relevant time domain information and attendent modal problems in any conventional size HT/music room, and the filter length is (in layman's terms) "as long as it needs to be" to adequately address the time domain component of the room. The actual filter length is considered proprietary by Audyssey, though.

While this is likely to become an evergreen debate, in our opinion IIR filters with high Q (narrow band) values have phase problems which are indeed audible. And attempting to avoid high Q filter values (by using wider filters with less resolution) simply causes them to overlap neighboring bands, thus reducing the efficacy of the EQ solution. 

Furthermore, Audyssey applies a proprietary pyschoacoustic weighting to its filter coefficients in order to apply filter correction appropriately. 

The combination of eliminating audible IIR phase problems by employing minumum phase FIR filters, and the use of pyschoacoustic weighting on the filter coefficients, results in a superior sounding EQ solution.


----------



## rmk

Ed Mullen said:


> The AS-EQ1 generates an impulse response and does indeed look at the time domain component (ringing profile) of the room when it builds the minimum phase FIR filter solution, as opposed to just looking at the magnitude response.
> 
> The AS-EQ1 impulse duration is easily long enough to capture all relevant time domain information and attendent modal problems in any conventional size HT/music room, and the filter length is (in layman's terms) "as long as it needs to be" to adequately address the time domain component of the room. The actual filter length is considered proprietary by Audyssey, though.
> 
> While this is likely to become an evergreen debate, in our opinion IIR filters with high Q (narrow band) values have phase problems which are indeed audible. And attempting to avoid high Q filter values (by using wider filters with less resolution) simply causes them to overlap neighboring bands, thus reducing the efficacy of the EQ solution.
> 
> Furthermore, Audyssey applies a proprietary pyschoacoustic weighting to its filter coefficients in order to apply filter correction appropriately.
> 
> The combination of eliminating audible IIR phase problems by employing minumum phase FIR filters, and the use of pyschoacoustic weighting on the filter coefficients, results in a superior sounding EQ solution.


Good Info Ed, thank you. FOr me, setting Q values with the Velo SMS-1 has always been a guessing game due to the limited feedback the low resolution SMS-1 graphs provide. I have resisted the impulse to get REW and dive into the deep end of the pool and perhaps the AS-EQ1 is the right solution for someone like me.


----------



## nathometheatre

Doug,
Thank you for the advice! Good stuff! Yes, I was referring to the cross over on my Denon, and bypassing the cross over on my PB12/plus2. So I'm going to set it back to 80hz, and set my fronts and center channel back to small. Thanks again! Kevin


----------



## azjimmy

Yes, very cool indeed Ed. I think I need to read up on IIR/FIR filters.


----------



## Tong Chia

*Question about EQ response*

On my AS-EQ1 the after calibration trace goes to about 200Hz. 
I had initially assumed that the *After* trace was that of the 
sub but I am now not sure.

I noticed some of the other members traces go well beyond that. What is the difference ?

http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...ng-new-eq1-subeq-goes-sale-10.html#post168810

http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...ng-new-eq1-subeq-goes-sale-10.html#post168912

My AS-EQ1 is connected to the subwoofer Pre-Out on my Onkyo 885. Mains crossed over at 90Hz
rears at 100Hz. Sub is a Velodyne HGS18MkII.


----------



## Timoxx4

*Re: Question about EQ response*

It wont matter going flat out to 200hz as your AVR will just apply its cross over at 90hz and chop most of that higher stuff out of the subs and send it to your other speakers instead.


----------



## k0rww

Hi nathometheatre,


Does the Denon 4808 have the ability to level trim while the AS-EQ1 is sending a test tone to the AVR? I have the 3808 which is similar. I have been unable to figure out how to do this.

I got very good results without doing this, but intend to redo the process with Ed Mullen's recommendation:
"In cases where a user cannot reconcile the level matching step, simply set the AS-EQ1 to 75 dB for the subwoofer and run the EQ routine and save the file to the AS-EQ1. Then level match your speakers and subwoofer by whatever other means (internal test tones, Avia, SPL meter) has successfully worked in the past."

This is essentially what I did but without the last step. I didn't save the file or I would have provided my results.


----------



## Ed Mullen

*Re: Question about EQ response*



Tong Chia said:


> On my AS-EQ1 the after calibration trace goes to about 200Hz.
> I had initially assumed that the *After* trace was that of the
> sub but I am now not sure.
> 
> I noticed some of the other members traces go well beyond that. What is the difference ?
> 
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...ng-new-eq1-subeq-goes-sale-10.html#post168810
> 
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...ng-new-eq1-subeq-goes-sale-10.html#post168912
> 
> My AS-EQ1 is connected to the subwoofer Pre-Out on my Onkyo 885. Mains crossed over at 90Hz
> rears at 100Hz. Sub is a Velodyne HGS18MkII.


If the before/after graphs are with the AS-EQ1 connected directly to the DD-18 subs, the after graph is simply showing an internal low pass in the DD-18. An internal (fixed, non-adjustable) low pass is very common on subwoofer amplifiers.


----------



## Ed Mullen

rmk said:


> With movies, the Audyssey EQ seemed to cut much more of the impact out of bass intense passages. We used the sound canon scene from The Incredible Hulk (much to Doug’s amusement) as the tester here. Both Randy and I noticed that the sound canons had been pretty effectively neutered by Audyssey while other bass parts of that scene maintained their impact and slam. My impression was that Audyssey was doing to the LFE channel what I initially though it did to the higher frequencies when I use the Audyssey Multi EQ in my Integra SSP i.e. over treating the bass response.
> 
> As it turns out Audyssey does indeed flatten out the room response. The Audyssey graph showed a dramatic difference between before and after graphs. To validate this, we put up the Velodyne SMS-1 real time display showing the rooms FR at various listening positions using the Velo mic. This experiment also showed the large differences in graphed response that slight mic movements made across my HT seating area. For me even more interesting was how these graphs did not necessarily correlate to significant changes in the sound in moving from seat to seat. I believe that is due to a fairly good native (no EQ) bass response across my seating area aided by dual subs, room treatments and the room itself. Whatever Audyssey does right for music, seems to lessen the impact I have become acoustomecd for movies.
> 
> After running the AS-EQ1, it recommended increasing the LFE trim by 12db over the previous SMS-1 trim setting. I can't help but wonder if others who have the unit have had the similar delta with the LFE trim. While increasing the LFE channel trim helped with movies, I can't help but wonder why this is necessary. In re-setting my system later in the day, I was nearly blown out of the room by the sub channel when re-running the level settings. It required a 12db cut to get things back in sync.
> 
> [/IMG]


If you noticed a lack of slam/impact on certain scenese after the AS-EQ1 was set-up, I suspect your subs were simply running too hot previously and/or had peaks which have been flattened. 

The AS-EQ1 targets a flat FR and does not have any limiters or DRC circuits. It also targets a level-matched subwoofer with the remaining speaker channels (which I suspect is the primary cause of your observations). 

A level-matched and flat subwoofer system will playback as intended by the director and mixing engineers, provided the subwoofer system does not otherwise have any output/extension limitations (which is certainly the case with your dual Danley, which have virtually unlimited clean output).

After the AS-EQ1 EQ routine is run at 75 dB (required to avoid digital headroom/clipping issues), then the user is free to run the subwoofer system as hot (or cool) as he wants to satisfy his personal taste in bass (which vary greatly among enthusiasts). 

Over time, I have gravitated to a preference for a flat and level matched subwoofer system, as opposed to any fixed/static "house curves" or running the sub system hot. It may be initially less impressive during demos, etc., but over time it is far less fatiguing and simply sounds "right" to my ears. Bass effects - even deep/loud/impressive ones - are rarely mixed at such a level as to completely dominate a soundtrack to the point of being distracting.

You're free to run the subs as hot/cool as you like of course, but I recommend giving flat/level-matched a try for a while before concluding it sounds castrated or nuetered; "different" is often initially perceived to be "worse" until the listener adjusts to the new sound. I'm betting if you adjust to flat/level and then go back to hot/peaky, that the subs will simply sound overblown and domineering. It's often just a matter of time/perspective that will skew our opinions accordingly. 

As for the AS-EQ1 and the SMS-1 having different trim/gain settings, that is simply a function of the two devices have different sensitivity and unity gain settings on the inputs stages and different voltages on the output stages. That is why, of course, the AS-EQ1 instructions require the gain setting on the amplifier(s) be adjusted during the subwoofer test tone so that the subwoofer is playing at 75 dB before proceeding to the EQ stage.


----------



## rmk

Ed Mullen said:


> If you noticed a lack of slam/impact on certain scenese after the AS-EQ1 was set-up, I suspect your subs were simply running too hot previously and/or had peaks which have been flattened.
> 
> The AS-EQ1 targets a flat FR and does not have any limiters or DRC circuits. It also targets a level-matched subwoofer with the remaining speaker channels (which I suspect is the primary cause of your observations).
> 
> A level-matched and flat subwoofer system will playback as intended by the director and mixing engineers, provided the subwoofer system does not otherwise have any output/extension limitations (which is certainly the case with your dual Danley, which have virtually unlimited clean output).
> 
> After the AS-EQ1 EQ routine is run at 75 dB (required to avoid digital headroom/clipping issues), then the user is free to run the subwoofer system as hot (or cool) as he wants to satisfy his personal taste in bass (which vary greatly among enthusiasts).
> 
> Over time, I have gravitated to a preference for a flat and level matched subwoofer system, as opposed to any fixed/static "house curves" or running the sub system hot. It may be initially less impressive during demos, etc., but over time it is far less fatiguing and simply sounds "right" to my ears. Bass effects - even deep/loud/impressive ones - are rarely mixed at such a level as to completely dominate a soundtrack to the point of being distracting.
> 
> You're free to run the subs as hot/cool as you like of course, but I recommend giving flat/level-matched a try for a while before concluding it sounds castrated or nuetered; "different" is often initially perceived to be "worse" until the listener adjusts to the new sound. I'm betting if you adjust to flat/level and then go back to hot/peaky, that the subs will simply sound overblown and domineering. It's often just a matter of time/perspective that will skew our opinions accordingly.
> 
> As for the AS-EQ1 and the SMS-1 having different trim/gain settings, that is simply a function of the two devices have different sensitivity and unity gain settings on the inputs stages and different voltages on the output stages. That is why, of course, the AS-EQ1 instructions require the gain setting on the amplifier(s) be adjusted during the subwoofer test tone so that the subwoofer is playing at 75 dB before proceeding to the EQ stage.


Thanks for the comments Ed. Of the four hours I had with the AS-EQ1 at least two of them were spent on connections and running the setup. That did not leave enough time to reach any valid opinions so my comments are more casual observations. 

I did find the trim/gain delta interesting. I had to increase the gain on my sub amp 25% to get setup to run and after running the AS-EQ1 setup, I had to increase the sub level in my Integra Pre/Pro by more than 10db to hit the target 75db. That is a pretty significant sensitivity delta.

In any case, I run my subs level matched (or very close) with the other speakers and the SMS-1 takes care of the peaks so that I have +/-4db from 18Hz - 100Hz on the LFE channel at the #1 LP. What you describe as "hot/peaky", I could call dynamics. Audyssey Flat is one thing but there seemed to be LF content that was missing altogether when running Audyssey (hence nuetered). I found that was the case with Audyssey on my SSP as well but after many attempts, I finally got it to where I liked it. Maybe that is the adjustment period you mentioned.


----------



## Sycraft

Ya there's always an adjustment period, particularly if you are going from louder to quieter. We are biased to like louder sounds, all other things being equal. So if you are evil and want to sell someone speakers A over speakers B, you set speakers A to play 3dB louder, and people will prefer it.

Thus if you go from more bass to less bass, well it is going to sound weird. However, given some time, maybe you say "You know, that really is a better balance."


----------



## Texxen

Hi Doug & Ed. I have another question :reading:

When using AS-EQ1, doesn't it bypass the subwoofer processing in the AVR? I got to the end of the calibration and it recommends subwoofer trim of -0.9dB in the AVR. But I thought that any subwoofer trim change in the AVR wouldn't have any effect since AS-EQ1 is now handling the sub instead of the AVR. 

I did some experiment and tried changing the sub trim to different levels in the avr and it doesn't make any difference. So where am I supposed to put in the -0.9dB trim for the sub? 

There are 2 places in my AVR that I can put the trim;
1) Speaker Level - where I can change individual trim for each channel
2) LFE Level - there is only 2 trims in this menu which say "speaker" and "headphone"


Thanks


----------



## Patrick Nevin

Last week I ordered Auralex Atom 12 bass trap system. It comes with 4 corner fill cubes and 12 lernd's . I think it will help out my bass which will be better than what i have now which is nothing. I do have a small room which is 12 x 8 x. They arrive on Monday so will install them either Tuesday or Wednesday and eq the sub both facing the wall and facing the room and see which response comes out best.


----------



## Ed Mullen

Texxen said:


> Hi Doug & Ed. I have another question :reading:
> 
> When using AS-EQ1, doesn't it bypass the subwoofer processing in the AVR? I got to the end of the calibration and it recommends subwoofer trim of -0.9dB in the AVR. But I thought that any subwoofer trim change in the AVR wouldn't have any effect since AS-EQ1 is now handling the sub instead of the AVR.
> 
> I did some experiment and tried changing the sub trim to different levels in the avr and it doesn't make any difference. So where am I supposed to put in the -0.9dB trim for the sub?
> 
> There are 2 places in my AVR that I can put the trim;
> 1) Speaker Level - where I can change individual trim for each channel
> 2) LFE Level - there is only 2 trims in this menu which say "speaker" and "headphone"
> 
> 
> Thanks


The AS-EQ1 operates at/near unity gain and does not control the level of the subwoofer. Think of the AS-EQ1 and the subwoofer almost as one physical piece of gear. It's simply a subwoofer with a very flat in-room FR. Anything imposed upstream of the AS-EQ1/subwoofer will affect the calibration level and the FR, such as trim level changes and low pass filters. So input your subwoofer trim level change in the AVR. 

The term "LFE Level" can mean a few things, and I wish some AVR manufacturers were more specific in differentiating the subwoofer channel level (which affects redirected bass and the LFE channel equally), and the LFE channel level control (which attenuates only the LFE channel, usually on a scale of 0 to -10). 

What you want to change to -0.9 (usually on a scale of -10 to +10) is your subwoofer channel level. Your LFE channel attenuation control, if one exists on your AVR, should be left at 0 and not attenuated.


----------



## Tong Chia

*Re: Question about EQ response*



Ed Mullen said:


> If the before/after graphs are with the AS-EQ1 connected directly to the DD-18 subs, the after graph is simply showing an internal low pass in the DD-18. An internal (fixed, non-adjustable) low pass is very common on subwoofer amplifiers.


Thanks for the confirmtion. The lowpass 15Hz is a result of the subsonic filter designed
to protect the amp.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

*Re: Question about EQ response*



Tong Chia said:


> Thanks for the confirmtion. The lowpass 15Hz is a result of the subsonic filter designed
> to protect the amp.


Low pass? :daydream:


----------



## Tong Chia

*Re: Question about EQ response*



Kal Rubinson said:


> Low pass? :daydream:


Highpass :duh:


----------



## Ed Mullen

*Re: Question about EQ response*

The low pass is internal and is not user adjustable. It typically can occur anywhere north of 150 Hz. Not all amps have them, but your Velo clearly does (provided the AS-EQ1 was connected directly to the DD-18 with nothing else in the loop). 

Most of our SVS/BASH amps have a low pass starting at ~330 Hz, for example.


----------



## Roadkill

I prefer to lurk because I learn more by reading than making useless comments. But since I've been told that I have to actually log in and post a comment or my account will be deleted, here it is.

Great thread folks, and thanks to Ed for answering my question about the unit not having balanced in/outs about month ago.


----------



## Dwight Angus

I also tend to read and not ask too many questions but here goes:

After level matching each speaker at 75db. Am I limited to that volume level later on watching movies etc or am I free to adjust the avr master control at my discretion or does this effect flattening of the fr?


----------



## Ed Mullen

Dwight Angus said:


> I also tend to read and not ask too many questions but here goes:
> 
> After level matching each speaker at 75db. Am I limited to that volume level later on watching movies etc or am I free to adjust the avr master control at my discretion or does this effect flattening of the fr?


The AS-EQ1 requires 75 dB before the EQ routine is run in order to avoid digital clipping/headroom issues. 

We provide the level match function for the speaker channels because not all SPL measuring devices will read the same (the RS meter is hardly a reference standard for absolute SPL). So this gives you the opportunity to level match the subwoofer and speaker channels with the same device.

You are free to adjust the subwoofer calibration level afterward; it won't bother the AS-EQ1. Naturally, you may listen to your system at any master volume setting and it won't affect the AS-EQ1 FR or performance at all.


----------



## cavchameleon

Ed Mullen said:


> The AS-EQ1 requires 75 dB before the EQ routine is run in order to avoid digital clipping/headroom issues.
> 
> We provide the level match function for the speaker channels because not all SPL measuring devices will read the same (the RS meter is hardly a reference standard for absolute SPL). So this gives you the opportunity to level match the subwoofer and speaker channels with the same device.
> 
> You are free to adjust the subwoofer calibration level afterward; it won't bother the AS-EQ1. Naturally, you may listen to your system at any master volume setting and it won't affect the AS-EQ1 FR or performance at all.


Ed,

Just a question on this. If one does decide to increase the sub calibration level afterward, the HP roll-off is determined by the AVR's BM and not the AS-EQ1, is that correct (I'm assuming that the AS-EQ1's filters are always in place up the the freq point it found the subs capability at).


----------



## Dwight Angus

Got it

Thanks Ed


----------



## Ed Mullen

cavchameleon said:


> Ed,
> 
> Just a question on this. If one does decide to increase the sub calibration level afterward, the HP roll-off is determined by the AVR's BM and not the AS-EQ1, is that correct (I'm assuming that the AS-EQ1's filters are always in place up the the freq point it found the subs capability at).


The selected crossover frequency in the AVR (which applies a high pass to the speakers and a low pass to the subwoofer at the selected frequency) does not affect the subwoofer channel calibration level. 

The AS-EQ1 does detect both the acoustic/electric high pass (at the low-end roll-off) and the electric low pass (at the high-end roll-off) of the subwoofer. The selected crossover frequency in the AVR does not affect the former, and cascades with the latter.


----------



## cavchameleon

Thanks Ed! That clarifies it for me. Thanks for such an outstanding product (can't wait to receive mine in August)!!!


----------



## rosco968

Wow this thread has gotten long since I found it late last week. 

I wonder if there is a significant difference between the SMS-1 and the AS-eq1 besides the multiple sampling points?

I am trying to get my head around this. Thanks.


----------



## cavchameleon

rosco968 said:


> Wow this thread has gotten long since I found it late last week.
> 
> I wonder if there is a significant difference between the SMS-1 and the AS-eq1 besides the multiple sampling points?
> 
> I am trying to get my head around this. Thanks.


Actually, that's only one, but not the biggest difference. The SMS-1 is an 8 band parametric eq while the AS-EQ1 has several hundred bands of eq. Also, the AS-EQ1 corrects in the time domain (the biggest affect on sound IMO as other eq's can actually destroy the time domain). And it all comes in a very easy to use 'set it and forget it' package. Ed can chime you in on the other differences.


----------



## Frank D

I realize the AS-EQ1 works in the time domain as well as the frequency domain when making corrections. 

Wondering how the AS-EQ1 compares to something like the Lexicon MC12 with built in EQ that is also supposed to work in the "time" domain. Anyone have any comments here?

From my experiences the MC12 EQ does not work that well in the "frequency" domain so I bought an SMS-1 to improve the freqency domain.


----------



## Sonnie

Roadkill said:


> ... I've been told that I have to actually log in and post a comment or my account will be deleted, here it is.


Just to clarify... we have never required this. We only delete accounts if you have not logged in to the forum in over a year. We figure if you ain't been here in a year, you ain't comin' back. It keeps our number of members a little more realistic.

Back to our regularly scheduled thread... just did not want anyone to get the wrong idea. :bigsmile:


----------



## rosco968

Several hundred bands of eq should get things covered. I guess thats how the curve shown was so flat.

I had no idea about the time domain. Seems like bass would not be that easy to effect with TD unless it is severe. Just thinking out loud.

Thanks for reply.


----------



## cavchameleon

rosco968 said:


> Several hundred bands of eq should get things covered. I guess thats how the curve shown was so flat.
> 
> I had no idea about the time domain. Seems like bass would not be that easy to effect with TD unless it is severe. Just thinking out loud.
> 
> Thanks for reply.


Hi Rosco,

Actually, it's the bass region that has the most issues (TD and EQ) compared to the rest of the spectrum. This is why many other correction methods do not deal with the lower regions as it is difficult to deal with. There is a lot of psychoacoustic research that went into Audyssey's version of correction (check out their site, pretty informative). They have gone a long way and are continuing their research to improve their product even more. I have set up many systems using reference receivers from all makes and non of them have compared to the Audyssey based ones (IMO). I have not heard the new Anthem or Lexicon models though.

Ray


----------



## StereoPackRat

I'm really fascinated by this piece - the (relative) simplicity of going straight for the flattest in-room response, addressed in a comprehensive way, tickles me. I've played with the SMS-1 plenty, and it's wonderful, but it seems like a Swiss Army knife compared to a Ka-Bar (the AS-EQ1)! I am just about to change my main speakers, and then re-evaluate my subwoofer options in my room, so dough for the AS-EQ1 is decidedly unavailable for now. $800 isn't really expensive for what it is, but it sure seems expensive when you can't afford it! :sad2:


----------



## warpdrive

I was actually considering buying this unit, until I found out that it sells for $899 CAD as the preorder price from our Canadian distributor which seems a bit overpriced. That's probably a good thing because now I can save my money in anticipation of SVS's new subs in the pipeline

I am pretty happy with the Audyssey in my Onkyo AVR, so it seemed like a good bet. Maybe I'll win one instead  Time to get posting!


----------



## blekenbleu

I am trying to understand the AS-EQ1 Pass-through Mic technique.
It seems to me that the AS-EQ1 needs to know the frequency response
of the AVR calibration microphone at low frequencies. This could be
accomplished by comparing signals from its "known" cal mic with that
of the AVR's, but my reading of the operator manual (around page 15)
did not find that..?


----------



## cavchameleon

blekenbleu said:


> I am trying to understand the AS-EQ1 Pass-through Mic technique.
> It seems to me that the AS-EQ1 needs to know the frequency response
> of the AVR calibration microphone at low frequencies. This could be
> accomplished by comparing signals from its "known" cal mic with that
> of the AVR's, but my reading of the operator manual (around page 15)
> did not find that..?


Blekenbleu,

The pass-through mic is simply to let the AVR think that:
1. there is a subwoofer attached to the AVR during the AVR's calibration process
2. to tell the AVR that the Sub response is perfect

After the calibration of the AVR, then you go through the process of level matching the mains to the sub and then the sub's calibration with the AS-EQ1 using the supplied mic from the AS-EQ1.

Ray


----------



## rosco968

Ray,

Do you have one of these things? You seem to have all the answers.

If you do have a unit, did you have anything prior to the EQ1?

Just wondered about a comparison. Thanks for your insight so far.

Ryan


----------



## cavchameleon

rosco968 said:


> Ray,
> 
> Do you have one of these things? You seem to have all the answers.
> 
> If you do have a unit, did you have anything prior to the EQ1?
> 
> Just wondered about a comparison. Thanks for your insight so far.
> 
> Ryan


Hi Ryan,

No, I do not own one yet. I'm just very familiar with Audyssey (love their technology) and have read/understand the manual very well. I can't give any comparisons until I have a unit in my hands. I've used multiple types of eq (including the SMS-1 and Behringer FBD) plus many others in the professional realm (have done lots of audio/video work in the past including some studio work). I have to say that this unit looks like the best and easiest technology out there as most equipment takes many, many hours to set up and still may not come close to the results of the AS-EQ1 (especially when you consider the correction in the time domain - which really smears the image when there are issues in no so perfect room - i.e. 99% of all our rooms). There is a lot of discussion on this on two separate threads in the AVSforum site (one on just Audyssey and the other dedicated to the AS-EQ1) if you care to read those (the Audyssey one is Extremely long and Chris - the CTO of Audyssey, is on there most of the time answering questions).

Ray


----------



## blekenbleu

cavchameleon said:


> The pass-through mic is simply to let the AVR think that:
> 1. there is a subwoofer attached to the AVR during the AVR's calibration process
> 2. to tell the AVR that the Sub response is perfect


.. but how does the AS-EQ1 know what perfect response looks like through any AVR's mic?
I would not expect all AVR microphones to have ruler-flat response across the range of interest.


> After the calibration of the AVR, then you go through the process of level matching the mains to the sub and then the sub's calibration with the AS-EQ1 using the supplied mic from the AS-EQ1.


.. but AVRs may have attempted to compensate for expected curvature in ideal response with real mics.


----------



## cavchameleon

blekenbleu said:


> .. but how does the AS-EQ1 know what perfect response looks like through any AVR's mic?
> I would not expect all AVR microphones to have ruler-flat response across the range of interest.
> 
> .. but AVRs may have attempted to compensate for expected curvature in ideal response with real mics.


It is my understanding (Ed, chime in when you can) that the AS-EQ1 pings back the signal to the AVR (that the AVR sent) so that the AVR thinks no correction is needed (the AVR's mic is not actually used for the subwoofer measurement, only for the mains and the signal for the subwoofer ping is a mirror image sent back to the AVR from the AS-EQ1 as a perfect signal).

Here is some other info on Audyssey from Chris (part of a reply) to understand how the filters work:

"...
But the most important notion to understand is that there NO parametric EQ settings used. The entire focus of the 6 year research in my lab at the university was based on the early findings that showed the biggest problem in room EQ today: parametric methods. So, that was thrown out in 1997 when we started this research. The MultEQ approach is to (1) measure the room in the time domain (2) use a new way to combine measurements that overcomes the limitations of averaging and (3) create an EQ solution that uses a special form of FIR filters as opposed to the standard IIR filters used in parametric EQ.

So, there are no bands in MultEQ. At least not traditional ones. There are filter taps and there are hundreds of them in the main channels and thousands of them in the subwoofer channel (8x more in the sub). That's why I push so hard to use the sub whenever possible. You are getting a tool that uses several thousand control points to shape the response to what it needs to be. I hope this helps give you a little more insight on our approach. If you are interested in more details, we have published dozens of technical peer-reviewed papers that I can send you and a text book that I can point you to."


----------



## Timoxx4

blekenbleu said:


> .. but how does the AS-EQ1 know what perfect response looks like through any AVR's mic?
> I would not expect all AVR microphones to have ruler-flat response across the range of interest.
> 
> .. but AVRs may have attempted to compensate for expected curvature in ideal response with real mics.


As mentioned above the AVR's mic is not used in this instance. The EQ1 is connected to the AVR with a pass through cable to where the AVR's mic would normally be pluged in. So the EQ1 is now in place of the AVR's mic and is sending the AVR a ruller flat signal that the AVR will see as needing no correction.

I guess you are thinking the AVR has a built in mic .cal file of something. In that case the AVR will ping the EQ1 through the pass through cable and the EQ1 will bounce back the exact same ping so the AVR will see it needs no correction.


----------



## blekenbleu

Timoxx4 said:


> I guess you are thinking the AVR has a built in mic .cal file of something.


If not, then any corrections applied would have systematic errors according to the inverse of that mic's
transfer functions.


> In that case the AVR will ping the EQ1 through the pass through cable and the EQ1 will bounce back the exact same ping so the AVR will see it needs no correction.


.. which will be incorrect, because the AVR will compensate that ping for the missing mic.


----------



## cavchameleon

blekenbleu said:


> If not, then any corrections applied would have systematic errors according to the inverse of that mic's
> transfer functions.
> 
> .. which will be incorrect, because the AVR will compensate that ping for the missing mic.


Actually, as far as the AVR is concerned, there is a mic attached (it does not know it's missing). The AS-EQ1 make the AVR think there is a mic and as mentioned above, sends a perfectly flat frequency response to the AVR so that no correction files are created. 

Ray


----------



## rosco968

Is the problem with parametric EQ time smear?

Can anybody explain the difference between a filter tap and Parametric EQ in simple terms?

Sorry, but I am trying to understand this technology a little better without reading the book. -Ryan


----------



## BigPines

blekenbleu said:


> If not, then any corrections applied would have systematic errors according to the inverse of that mic's
> transfer functions.
> 
> .. which will be incorrect, because the AVR will compensate that ping for the missing mic.


Hmmm... I tend to agree with this theory. I'm sure this was contemplated during the research/testing of the unit (and hopefully overcome). The Audyssey guys are very smart. However, I'd sure like to hear what SVS has to say about this.

Mike


----------



## Timoxx4

blekenbleu said:


> If not, then any corrections applied would have systematic errors according to the inverse of that mic's
> transfer functions.
> 
> .. which will be incorrect, because the AVR will compensate that ping for the missing mic.


Ah yes, you got a good point there. Now i see what you mean. Well i dont know how the EQ1 dose it then ?


----------



## blekenbleu

BigPines said:


> I'm sure this was contemplated during the research/testing of the unit (and hopefully overcome). The Audyssey guys are very smart.


Audyssey folks are well-positioned to know how an AS-EQ1 would
interact with AVRs employing their licensed auto-equalizing licensed technology,
and they may have reverse-engineered popular competitors.
A single digital convolution clocked fast enough to be effective at higher frequencies needs
many taps to minimize windowing artifacts at lower frequencies;
perhaps consumer MultEQ effectively does just coarse level-matching of bass.


----------



## cavchameleon

rosco968 said:


> Is the problem with parametric EQ time smear?
> 
> Can anybody explain the difference between a filter tap and Parametric EQ in simple terms?
> 
> Sorry, but I am trying to understand this technology a little better without reading the book. -Ryan



Ryan,

The best place to ask is on the Audyssey thread at AVSforum. Chris from Audyssey is on the forum all the time and can best give you the info you are looking for. I'm no expert in the field and do not want to give the wrong or not-so-correct info here. I wish he were on this site also. Ed also knows a lot about this and can chime in.

Thanks,
Ray


----------



## Sonnie

I have contacted Audyssey and asked if get their rep to participate here as well... maybe even create them a dedicated forum. Of course we do not want to derail this thread into a sole Audyssey discussion, but as it relates to the SVS AS-EQ1, we are fine. :T


----------



## cavchameleon

Sonnie said:


> I have contacted Audyssey and asked if get their rep to participate here as well... maybe even create them a dedicated forum. Of course we do not want to derail this thread into a sole Audyssey discussion, but as it relates to the SVS AS-EQ1, we are fine. :T


Hi Sonnie,

Not sure if you have visited both the AS-EQ1 (with over 1000 posts) and Audyssey (with over 15,000 posts) thread at AVSforum.com. Both are extremely informative. Ed participates in the AS-EQ1 forum there quite often and Chris participates on the Audyssey forum on a daily basis (unless on travel). Chris is extremely helpful in helping others understand Audyssey's technology (and to help others also understand what part of an AVR is Audyssey's choice and what is not - sometimes can be confusing such as: the manufacturer decides on the crossover points, not Audyssey-which simply 'reports' to the AVR what the -3db point is of a speaker; this is a common misunderstanding). I'll be great to have them on board here for some clarity and discussion.

Ray


----------



## Kal Rubinson

cavchameleon said:


> Hi Sonnie,
> 
> Not sure if you have visited both the AS-EQ1 (with over 1000 posts) and Audyssey (with over 15,000 posts) thread at AVSforum.com. Both are extremely informative. Ed participates in the AS-EQ1 forum there quite often and Chris participates on the Audyssey forum on a daily basis (unless on travel). Chris is extremely helpful in helping others understand Audyssey's technology (and to help others also understand what part of an AVR is Audyssey's choice and what is not - sometimes can be confusing such as: the manufacturer decides on the crossover points, not Audyssey-which simply 'reports' to the AVR what the -3db point is of a speaker; this is a common misunderstanding). I'll be great to have them on board here for some clarity and discussion.
> Ray


It might be nice and convenient but I think counterproductive when their contributions are already available elsewhere. It will, undoubtedly, result in much duplication and, possibly, apparent inconsistencies. If there's a dedicated forum already established, why another?

Kal


----------



## BigPines

I guess I could go over to AVS and search around to try to find an answer to this Audyssey AVR calibration with an AS-EQ1 question and then report back here. There has to be a mic cal file built into the AVR because we all know the measurement mics are not perfectly flat and as such, it would seem that purely echoing back the test tone would not result in perfectly flat measured FR by the AVR.

Surely this question has already been asked but I was surprised nobody brought it up in this thread until now. I'll see what I can find.

Mike


----------



## cavchameleon

Kal Rubinson said:


> It might be nice and convenient but I think counterproductive when their contributions are already available elsewhere. It will, undoubtedly, result in much duplication and, possibly, apparent inconsistencies. If there's a dedicated forum already established, why another?
> 
> Kal


Agree completely. Was not sure if it was Kosher to add an actual link in this tread to forward searchers to the other threads. Sonnie, what about that?


----------



## BigPines

I was just thinking that this may be why some people are reporting neutered bass! Could it be that by not taking into account the AVR cal file, instead of seeing a perfectly flat sub, the AVR is getting a measurement that has an artificial rise in the bottom end? If I am thinking correctly, this could happen. The AS-EQ1 echos back the test tone and then the cal file is applied on top of that in the AVR making the received measurement too hot in the lower frequencies. So, naturally the AVR tries to cut this out via Audyssey EQ.

Now this is just a wild theory and we should not jump to any conclusions until it has been proven out but it stands to reason that this could indeed be happening if Audyssey did not take into account the cal file in the AVR.

I will get an answer to this somehow. I have to figure this out before I buy one of these.

Mike


----------



## Vader

OK, real basic question about using a subEQ. Based on my previous experience with SVS products and service (both second to none, IMO), I would go nowhere else when I upgrade to one (I am currently using a BFD 1124). I intend to upgrade my AVR soon, to one which has auto room correction and EQ (Probably a Denon with Audyssey). My question is, does that EQ also cover the bass regions (I could not find the covered frequency range), or do I still need to EQ the subs separately? Thanx!


----------



## BigPines

Vader said:


> OK, real basic question about using a subEQ. Based on my previous experience with SVS products and service (both second to none, IMO), I would go nowhere else when I upgrade to one (I am currently using a BFD 1124). I intend to upgrade my AVR soon, to one which has auto room correction and EQ (Probably a Denon with Audyssey). My question is, does that EQ also cover the bass regions (I could not find the covered frequency range), or do I still need to EQ the subs separately? Thanx!


The answer is Yes and Yes! The Audyssey MultEQ AVRs are wonderful units. They EQ all the speakers including the sub. So why would you want a separate sub EQ like the AS-EQ1? Well, for starters, the AS-EQ1 can handle dual subs (even dual discrete subs). This is a major advantage if you are running more than one sub which many of us are. Another reason is there are only so many "bands" (processing power) available in the AVR and the sub only gets allocated a portion of what is available. The AS-EQ1 has MUCH more resolution and processing power to dedicate to only the sub channel enabling it to do a MUCH better job on the sub. The thinking is get a dedicated sub EQ and let your AVR use all of it's processing power to EQ the other speakers.

This is simplified but I hope it helps.

Mike


----------



## Vader

Thanks, Mike!

I am looking forward to retiring my Behringer (great little toy, but not the most user-friendly)...


----------



## BigPines

Vader said:


> Thanks, Mike!
> 
> I am looking forward to retiring my Behringer (great little toy, but not the most user-friendly)...


Yes, I was seriously considering one of the the Behringer units myself before the AS-EQ1 went on sale. This unit looks to be so much better (and easier to set up) that I have almost decided to get one. It is pricey but I am a firm believer in you get what you pay for. There are still a few questions that I am trying to sort out before I take the plunge but it looks very promising indeed.

Mike


----------



## blekenbleu

Vader said:


> (I am currently using a BFD 1124). I intend to upgrade my AVR soon, to one which has auto room correction and EQ (Probably a Denon with Audyssey). My question is, does that EQ also cover the bass regions (I could not find the covered frequency range), or do I still need to EQ the subs separately?


Read carefully qualified reviews of specific implementations that you would consider.
It may very well be that, for your application,
one of the latest AVRs might effectively render an AS-EQ1 superfluous.
However, for constrained sub selections and/or placement and/or room treatments,
accurate pre-compensation of signals is hard to beat.

I have a Denon 5805 with dual mismatched subs (one dedicated to LFE) and BFD.
MultEQ is nice (and newer versions are reportedly appreciably improved),
but FWIW MultEQ unexpectedly disengages itself at seemingly trivial provocations.
Also FWIW, dialing in mismatched subs to blend with MultEQ is fairly tedious.

Traditional systems control theory involves local corrections before global,
which in this case involves correcting subs, then allowing MultEQ to blend them
Digital correction over a wide range of frequencies (10 octaves is pretty wide)
could involve a lot of taps, so partitioning the solution into smaller ranges is good engineering practice.

More pragmatically, for anyone with older equipment who would rather add than replace,
something of this nature makes a good story.


----------



## BigPines

blekenbleu said:


> It may very well be that, for your application,
> one of the latest AVRs might effectively render an AS-EQ1 superfluous.
> However, for constrained sub selections and/or placement and/or room treatments,
> accurate pre-compensation of signals is hard to beat.


Sorry but I do not believe this. Name one AVR that has as much resolution to EQ your sub and can handle a dual discrete set-up as the AS-EQ1 can. If there is one, I'd love to know about it.



blekenbleu said:


> I have a Denon 5805 with dual mismatched subs (one dedicated to LFE) and BFD.
> MultEQ is nice (and newer versions are reportedly appreciably improved),
> but FWIW MultEQ unexpectedly disengages itself at seemingly trivial provocations.
> Also FWIW, dialing in mismatched subs to blend with MultEQ is fairly tedious.


I have not heard that newer MultEQ implementations are improved. Is there a thread about this I can look into to find out more about this?

If MultEQ is randomly disengaging, that sounds like either a defective unit or a bug in the Denon software to me. For the record, I have an Onkyo TX-SR876 and I have had no such problems with Audyssey.

Also, the AS-EQ1 was designed specifically for someone in your situation with dual subs. With this piece, blending the subs is not tedious. That is the whole point of an EQ than can automatically handle dual subs.

Mike


----------



## blekenbleu

BigPines said:


> Sorry but I do not believe this. Name one AVR that has as much resolution to EQ your sub and can handle a dual discrete set-up as the AS-EQ1 can.


My point[less] was that the right subs appropriately located in the right room
will not need that much correction.


----------



## BigPines

blekenbleu said:


> My point[less] was that the right subs appropriately located in the right room
> will not need that much correction.


OK, got it. Yes, I agree that sub placement and room treatment should be considered before any EQ solution. That being said, most of us are under real-world constraints. For instance, my living room doubles as my home theater and I am married. Need I say more? 

Mike


----------



## blekenbleu

BigPines said:


> If MultEQ is randomly disengaging, that sounds like either a defective unit or a bug in the Denon software to me.


Not necessarily randomly, just unpredictably, and I expect that
Denon would consider it a feature, rather than bug. Denon's 5805 manual
http://www.usa.denon.com/AVR5805DFU_usersmanual.pdf
is less than definitively clear. For example. page 130 states
that the "MultEQ XT" indicator turns red if "Speaker Configuration", "Delay Time",
"Channel Level" or "Crossover Frequency" settings are changed after performing
"Auto Setup". While I do not dispute that statement, so far as it goes,
I observe that it has gone red when none of those settings were changed.
Since I make most changes using its webserver,
I have never actually seen the indicator change from green to red,
so have yet to isolate exactly what other setting changes provoke it.


----------



## Sonnie

cavchameleon said:


> Hi Sonnie,
> 
> Not sure if you have visited both the AS-EQ1 (with over 1000 posts) and Audyssey (with over 15,000 posts) thread at AVSforum.com. Both are extremely informative. Ed participates in the AS-EQ1 forum there quite often and Chris participates on the Audyssey forum on a daily basis (unless on travel). Chris is extremely helpful in helping others understand Audyssey's technology (and to help others also understand what part of an AVR is Audyssey's choice and what is not - sometimes can be confusing such as: the manufacturer decides on the crossover points, not Audyssey-which simply 'reports' to the AVR what the -3db point is of a speaker; this is a common misunderstanding). I'll be great to have them on board here for some clarity and discussion.
> 
> Ray





Kal Rubinson said:


> It might be nice and convenient but I think counterproductive when their contributions are already available elsewhere. It will, undoubtedly, result in much duplication and, possibly, apparent inconsistencies. If there's a dedicated forum already established, why another?
> 
> Kal





BigPines said:


> I guess I could go over to AVS and search around to try to find an answer to this Audyssey AVR calibration with an AS-EQ1 question and then report back here. There has to be a mic cal file built into the AVR because we all know the measurement mics are not perfectly flat and as such, it would seem that purely echoing back the test tone would not result in perfectly flat measured FR by the AVR.
> 
> Surely this question has already been asked but I was surprised nobody brought it up in this thread until now. I'll see what I can find.
> 
> Mike





cavchameleon said:


> Agree completely. Was not sure if it was Kosher to add an actual link in this tread to forward searchers to the other threads. Sonnie, what about that?





I do not have an issue with linking to the Audyssey thread at AVS, not that anyone would have a problem finding it, but we do have our own SVS AS-EQ1 thread here and SVSound is a sponsor of the Shack. While that thread at AVS has over 1000 replies, it has been started since January 2007... ours started in February 2009 and we have almost half as many replies. They have 750,000 members, we have 24,000. 

As far as having an Audyssey forum here, I think it would be an excellent idea, regardless of what is going on at AVS. AVS does not have a dedicated "forum" for Audyssey... they simply have an Audyssey thread. Many members and readers do not want to wade through a 15,000 post thread. They would rather start their own thread for discussion of their own situation, issue, question, comments, etc. That is what forums are for and just one reason why a dedicated Audyssey forum would be an excellent benefit to not only Audyssey, but to their customers and potential customers as well. 

We have to remember... there are already tons of duplications for all kinds of topics and products between the two forums that anyone can label counterproductive if they wanted to, but in reality, there are very valid reasons for having two forums, otherwise we would not exist. :T

Sorry to drag this off the trail a bit. If anyone would like to start a discussion thread about this we can, but let's move on with the AS-EQ1 discussion from here. Thanks!


----------



## rosco968

BigPines said:


> OK, got it. Yes, I agree that sub placement and room treatment should be considered before any EQ solution. That being said, most of us are under real-world constraints. For instance, my living room doubles as my home theater and I am married. Need I say more?
> 
> Mike


No you said it all with living room and married!!!!!

I kid, I kid. I am in the same situation and it looks like the EQ-1 could be that miricle worker that folks in this prediciment are looking for.

Ryan


----------



## blekenbleu

BigPines said:


> That being said, most of us are under real-world constraints. For instance, my living room doubles as my home theater and I am married. Need I say more?


My crew chief and I have been married 20 years;
the ceremony was held in our (7200 cu ft) home theater.
However, I have significant dust, pollen and mold allergies,
so about the only sound absorbing materials in that room
are sofas and books (it doubles as our library).

[My wife encouraged me to attend track schools
at all the road courses at which I had watched
Can Am and Trans Am races back in the day.]


----------



## BigPines

blekenbleu said:


> Not necessarily randomly, just unpredictably, and I expect that
> Denon would consider it a feature, rather than bug. Denon's 5805 manual
> http://www.usa.denon.com/AVR5805DFU_usersmanual.pdf
> is less than definitively clear. For example. page 130 states
> that the "MultEQ XT" indicator turns red if "Speaker Configuration", "Delay Time",
> "Channel Level" or "Crossover Frequency" settings are changed after performing
> "Auto Setup". While I do not dispute that statement, so far as it goes,
> I observe that it has gone red when none of those settings were changed.
> Since I make most changes using its webserver,
> I have never actually seen the indicator change from green to red,
> so have yet to isolate exactly what other setting changes provoke it.


OK, so Audyssey is not disengaging but something seems to be getting changed (automatically?) after the calibration. My take is that even when the light is red, Audyssey is enabled. It is just signifying that it is not operating in pure calibration mode because some changes have been made to the configuration after the calibration. I'm sure there are some threads out there that deal with this particular AVR and others may have some ideas about why that happens.

Mike


----------



## Ed Mullen

BigPines said:


> I was just thinking that this may be why some people are reporting neutered bass! Could it be that by not taking into account the AVR cal file, instead of seeing a perfectly flat sub, the AVR is getting a measurement that has an artificial rise in the bottom end? If I am thinking correctly, this could happen. The AS-EQ1 echos back the test tone and then the cal file is applied on top of that in the AVR making the received measurement too hot in the lower frequencies. So, naturally the AVR tries to cut this out via Audyssey EQ.
> 
> Now this is just a wild theory and we should not jump to any conclusions until it has been proven out but it stands to reason that this could indeed be happening if Audyssey did not take into account the cal file in the AVR.
> 
> I will get an answer to this somehow. I have to figure this out before I buy one of these.
> 
> Mike



Hi Mike:

This is a non-issue if the AVR has MultEQ XT, because the Audyssey mic correction curve only applies at high frequencies. It is completely flat in the subwoofer range. That flatness is part of the mic design.

If one were using a non-MultEQ XT AVR with a mic cal curve which is not flat in the bass range (i.e. applies low frequency adjustments), then the result would indeed be the inversion of that curve being applied as a target for the sub. With that said, we would be very surprised if there is any correction in any mainstream AVR's EQ curve in the low frequency range. The electret capsules used for nearly all mainstream consumer AVRs (and they are all essentially a variant of the same basic part) are totally flat in that range.

Bottom line - it's not an issue to be concerned about when using the auto-EQ assist feature of the AS-EQ1. 

As for "neutered" bass, that term is at best a mischaracterization, as the AS-EQ1 targets a flat FR and a matched subwoofer/speaker level, and has absolutely no dynamic range compressors or limiters, nor does it artificially or arbitrarily high pass ULFs. While accurate and level-matched bass and reduced room ring/overhang might have less impact/slam than peaky and hotly calibrated bass, I certainly wouldn't characterize the migration to a more accurate low-end as "neutering" the bass. Nearly all users of properly set-up AS-EQ1s report plenty of impact/power to go along with the enhanced sound quality and accuracy. There are very few scenes where the bass is mixed so hot that it completely dominates the soundtrack, but on systems which are running overly hot and/or which are peaky in the 30-50 Hz band, it can seem like that is the case on nearly all blockbusters DVDs. This can quickly become fatiguing, and I think all users will much prefer flat, accurate, and level-matched bass over the long haul after an adjustment period.


----------



## blekenbleu

BigPines said:


> I have not heard that newer MultEQ implementations are improved.
> Is there a thread about this I can look into to find out more about this?


I think I recall reading an Audyssey employee state that not all MultEQ are created equal,
but that was over a year ago, and I did not document the citation.
Since I only replace them when defects in current home theater equipment become
intolerable, I elected not to focus on obsolescence in the 5805's processing.



> Also, the AS-EQ1 was designed specifically for someone in your situation with dual subs.


.. hence my interest. I started plowing thru this thread
to assess which configuration would most likely be most fruitful
(e.g. perhaps recombining LFE with bass) but then got distracted by append 113,
where Ed Mullen wrote that one could performed what seemed (to me) the obvious sequence
(auto-calibrate subs by AS-EQ-1, then auto-calibrate all speakers by AVR),
but then warned about the AVR overlaying its own EQ.
I imagined that this would be desirable, to better integrate overall response
than by having misrepresented an AVR's mic's bass response...



> This is a non-issue if the AVR has MultEQ XT, because the Audyssey mic correction curve only applies at high frequencies.
> It is completely flat in the subwoofer range. That flatness is part of the mic design.


OK, sorry for burning bandwidth.


----------



## clausdk

Just read all 19 pages or so, and the conclusion is:

I WANT ONE!:yes:


----------



## BigPines

Ed Mullen said:


> This is a non-issue if the AVR has MultEQ XT, because the Audyssey mic correction curve only applies at high frequencies. It is completely flat in the subwoofer range. That flatness is part of the mic design.


Good to know! I was speaking from some very basic experience with Room EQ Wizard and the Behringer ECM 8000 which after calibration does seem to correct for frequencies below 80Hz. There definitely appears to be a roll-off in that mic at least.



Ed Mullen said:


> As for "neutered" bass, that term is at best a mischaracterization, as the AS-EQ1 targets a flat FR and a matched subwoofer/speaker level, and has absolutely no dynamic range compressors or limiters, nor does it artificially or arbitrarily high pass ULFs. While accurate and level-matched bass and reduced room ring/overhang might have less impact/slam than peaky and hotly calibrated bass, I certainly wouldn't characterize the migration to a more accurate low-end as "neutering" the bass. Nearly all users of properly set-up AS-EQ1s report plenty of impact/power to go along with the enhanced sound quality and accuracy. There are very few scenes where the bass is mixed so hot that it completely dominates the soundtrack, but on systems which are running overly hot and/or which are peaky in the 30-50 Hz band, it can seem like that is the case on nearly all blockbusters DVDs. This can quickly become fatiguing, and I think all users will much prefer flat, accurate, and level-matched bass over the long haul after an adjustment period.


Understood and I totally agree with everything you said here and elsewhere about this. I know the term "neutered" does not have a positive connotation. I didn't mean anything by that other than simply using a description from at least one other post. I was just looking for a possible cause other than the obvious that some people do not prefer flat frequency response. Personally, there is so much unrealistic bass in film soundtracks these days that I don't understand the need to run anything but flat FR.

Thank you Ed for taking the time to answer these questions. My experience with SVS has been outstanding so far! I would not hesitate to purchase a product from you. I hope I will get one of these gems. 

Mike


----------



## BigPines

blekenbleu said:


> I think I recall reading an Audyssey employee state that not all MultEQ are created equal,
> but that was over a year ago, and I did not document the citation.


Perhaps they were simply stating that MultEQ XT was superior to the standard MultEQ? There is also the addition of Dynamic EQ which is very helpful in my experience.



blekenbleu said:


> .. hence my interest. I started plowing thru this thread
> to assess which configuration would most likely be most fruitful
> (e.g. perhaps recombining LFE with bass) but then got distracted by append 113,
> where Ed Mullen wrote that one could performed what seemed (to me) the obvious sequence
> (auto-calibrate subs by AS-EQ-1, then auto-calibrate all speakers by AVR),
> but then warned about the AVR overlaying its own EQ.
> I imagined that this would be desirable, to better integrate overall response
> than by having misrepresented an AVR's mic's bass response...


Wow, sorry I misunderstood so much of your original post. :huh:

Yeah, I believe Ed has said it is not desirable to overlap the EQ between a MultEQ XT AVR and the AS-EQ1 although I don't really understand why it would be detrimental. Maybe I'll have to go back and check his posts on that subject again. In my mind, it would work like this...

1) Run AS-EQ1 because it is really just an extension of the subwoofer anyway right?
2) Run MultEQ XT in the AVR. Theoretically, at this point (after AS-EQ1 calibration) it will only see a flat (or very near flat) subwoofer and the AVR won't really add too much (if any) EQ to the sub channel anyway right?

The above would seem to hold up in all but the very worst placement/room combinations. where the AS-EQ1 could not fix a null and then the AVR tried to fix the same null and therefore applied the same EQ to the same frequency and caused a loss of headroom and possibly even audible EQ artifacts.

Mike


----------



## blekenbleu

BigPines said:


> I would not hesitate to purchase a product from you.


FWIW, I just stopped hesitating. In my experience, products with good stories are rarely all bad.

One question for which I have not already read an answer is:
given options of combined or separate LFE,
for which is an AS-EQ1 likely to yield better results?

..for mismatched subs near front left and right corners?
(I find subs behind too startling.)

Ah, another question:
does the box ship with a printed manual, or should I just go ahead and print the pdf?


----------



## blekenbleu

BigPines said:


> 1) Run AS-EQ1 because it is really just an extension of the subwoofer anyway right?
> 2) Run MultEQ XT in the AVR. Theoretically, at this point (after AS-EQ1 calibration) it will only see a flat (or very near flat) subwoofer and the AVR won't really add too much (if any) EQ to the sub channel anyway right?
> 
> The above would seem to hold up in all but the very worst placement/room combinations. where the AS-EQ1 could not fix a null and then the AVR tried to fix the same null and therefore applied the same EQ to the same frequency and caused a loss of headroom and possibly even audible EQ artifacts.


Good point on the null, but one should deal with that before AVR integration.
Another consideration, as Ed already explained, is getting electrical levels balanced
so that AS-EQ1 digital stuff is working in its optimal range.


----------



## BigPines

blekenbleu said:


> FWIW, I just stopped hesitating. In my experience, products with good stories are rarely all bad.


Congratulations! :yay2:



blekenbleu said:


> One question for which I have not already read an answer is:
> given options of combined or separate LFE,
> for which is an AS-EQ1 likely to yield better results?
> 
> ..for mismatched subs near front left and right corners?
> (I find subs behind too startling.)


From what I understand, in your case you would definitely want to run the AS-EQ1 in the two separate sub configuration. They are different subs that are not co-located so running as separate allows the AS-EQ1 to optimize the two subs together. Is this what you meant?

It is funny that you mention not wanting the sub behind you because it is too startling. At one time I had one of my M&K MX-350s next to my couch with the woofer firing into the couch. On more than one occasion, the bass was so jarring that it really scared me and got my heart going. It was fun but in the end I decided I had better move the sub because it was distracting. Ironically, now I am considering some Crowson transducers so I can get scared again. :coocoo: I guess the grass is always greener...

Mike


----------



## blekenbleu

BigPines said:


> From what I understand, in your case you would definitely want to run the AS-EQ1 in the two separate sub configuration. They are different subs that are not co-located so running as separate allows the AS-EQ1 to optimize the two subs together. Is this what you meant?


Sorry, no. The PDF is pretty good on configuring the AS-EQ1 for separate subs,
except there is no recommendation:
"If you have discrete subwoofer or LFE outputs on your AVR
... and want the signals to be treated individually.."

I only want signals treated separately if it is likely to help.
They are being treated separately now because I gave up trying to tweak a BFD
to integrate both subs for music, so dedicated the sub which I was able to tweak
most "musically" for bass and the other for LFE.

After paying for all this processing, I'm hoping it can better integrate
or at least facilitate playing musical subs if relocation is needed.



> Ironically, now I am considering some Crowson transducers so I can get scared again.


I got shakers for the sofa; they are now disconnect..
red wine flies quite aways when the startle reflex kicks in,
e.g. at the ambush near the beginning of "Iron Man".
I suspect that Paramount deliberately mixed Blu-ray lead-in fodder low
to seduce folks into jacking the volume.


----------



## BigPines

blekenbleu said:


> Sorry, no. The PDF is pretty good on configuring the AS-EQ1 for separate subs,
> except there is no recommendation:
> "If you have discrete subwoofer or LFE outputs on your AVR
> ... and want the signals to be treated individually.."
> 
> I only want signals treated separately if it is likely to help.
> They are being treated separately now because I gave up trying to tweak a BFD
> to integrate both subs for music, so dedicated the sub which I was able to tweak
> most "musically" for bass and the other for LFE.
> 
> After paying for all this processing, I'm hoping it can better integrate
> or at least facilitate playing musical subs if relocation is needed.


Got it. Dunno about that one. I would think if you have discrete outs, use discrete but I am not really sure. Hopefully someone will chime in.



blekenbleu said:


> I got shakers for the sofa; they are now disconnect..
> red wine flies quite aways when the startle reflex kicks in,
> e.g. at the ambush near the beginning of "Iron Man".
> I suspect that Paramount deliberately mixed Blu-ray lead-in fodder low
> to seduce folks into jacking the volume.


Hehehe, yeah I can picture it. After a couple of "incidents" I may have to disconnect mine as well. 

Mike


----------



## blekenbleu

> Perhaps they were simply stating that MultEQ XT was superior to the standard MultEQ?
> There is also the addition of Dynamic EQ which is very helpful in my experience.


.. or better calibration processing? I don't think Dynamic EQ had been announced.
Sigh, guess I'll have to try recreating the context in which I would have stumbled across it.

.. OK, I guess it must have been the inability to upgrade my Denon AVR to CI, so no MultEQ Pro.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

blekenbleu said:


> FWIW, I just stopped hesitating. In my experience, products with good stories are rarely all bad.
> 
> One question for which I have not already read an answer is:
> given options of combined or separate LFE,
> for which is an AS-EQ1 likely to yield better results?
> 
> ..for mismatched subs near front left and right corners?
> (I find subs behind too startling.)
> 
> Ah, another question:
> does the box ship with a printed manual, or should I just go ahead and print the pdf?


Mine came with only the mic, disc and cables and I had to print the manual. OTOH, mine was a very early sample.

Kal


----------



## Doug McBride

The manual is provided on the CD as a PDF. The same file can be downloaded from the AS-EQ1 page on the SVS web site.

http://www.svsound.com/manuals/aseq_1_operatormanual_rev1_1_lowres.pdf

Doug


----------



## blekenbleu

Doug McBride said:


> The manual is provided on the CD as a PDF. The same file can be downloaded from the AS-EQ1 page on the SVS web site.
> 
> http://www.svsound.com/manuals/aseq_1_operatormanual_rev1_1_lowres.pdf
> 
> Doug


Thanks, I got it. Taking a hint from "lowres" in the name, I printed it 2-up.
Some lettering e.g. in FiG. 21 on page 31 becomes illegible,
but for practical purposes 2-up is altogether serviceable.

Images of the provided microphone are not very detailed;
it appears similar to e.g. the Marantz AMC1 Audyssey Microphone
and consequently difference in appearance from Denon's plump puck for my AVR.
I guess it is a nominally full-range microphone, rather than one specifically designed
for bass calibration. Like Denon's plump puck, its acoustic port appears
intended to point vertically, which presumably reduces its high frequency sensitivity
compared with other mics using electret cartridges (e.g. Radio Shack's SPL meters)
which typically recommend something nearer 45 than 90 degree orientation from horizontal.

Has anyone calibrated their Audyssey microphone
for evaluating results e.g. with REW and one less variable?


----------



## blekenbleu

Ed Mullen said:


> I'm not aware of any auto-EQ product (integrated or stand-alone) which evaluates the combined interactive/modal response of some/all of the speakers and the subwoofer.
> ...
> The real issue is how the speaker and subwoofer interact _below_ the selected crossover frequency. Depending on the design and F3 of the loudspeaker, its roll-off slope below the selected crossover frequency is anything but consistent and predictable. And this will cause FR and phase anomalies with the subwoofer.


It is fairly easy to use a signal generator, oscilloscope and amplified microphone
to identify an octave for crossover in which both speaker and sub
develop most nearly linear Lissajous figures relative to a sinusoidal signal.
It should not be very difficult for digital audio controllers to semi-automate this,
but I suppose that would be more appropriately discussed in Equalization | Calibration fora.


----------



## jbjb

BigPines said:


> The answer is Yes and Yes! The Audyssey MultEQ AVRs are wonderful units. They EQ all the speakers including the sub. So why would you want a separate sub EQ like the AS-EQ1? Well, for starters, the AS-EQ1 can handle dual subs (even dual discrete subs). This is a major advantage if you are running more than one sub which many of us are. Another reason is there are only so many "bands" (processing power) available in the AVR and the sub only gets allocated a portion of what is available. The AS-EQ1 has MUCH more resolution and processing power to dedicate to only the sub channel enabling it to do a MUCH better job on the sub. The thinking is get a dedicated sub EQ and let your AVR use all of it's processing power to EQ the other speakers.
> 
> This is simplified but I hope it helps.
> 
> Mike


Like you I have the Onkyo 876 and was just thinking about the question: since the 876 already has MultEQ XT would it be superfluous adding the AS-EQ1?

Your post above is informative but in my setup I only have 1 sub. So the dual sub capability of the AS-EQ1 is not relevant to me. While the AS-EQ1 might be better due to more resolution and processing power as you say, how much better is it?

Does anyone have a FR graph for a sub just with MultEQ XT applied vs AS-EQ1? That would be quite informative.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

jbjb said:


> Does anyone have a FR graph for a sub just with MultEQ XT applied vs AS-EQ1? That would be quite informative.


It would be quite specific, perhaps too much so to be useful. Remember, these are not fixed filters but the results of many variables.
1. Speakers
2. Room setup
3. Mic #/placement variation from test to test
4. Calculations done in AVR vs. PC
5. Hardware
6. Skill/repeatability of user.


----------



## blekenbleu

jbjb said:


> Like you I have the Onkyo 876 and was just thinking about the question: since the 876 already has MultEQ XT would it be superfluous adding the AS-EQ1?


Have you seen append #403?

A mix of appends here from users, kibitzers and manufacturers reps
makes interesting reading, but inefficient subsequent referencing.
An extraction of append numbers original testimonies follows;
apologies in advance for omissions:

SVS:
1, 14, 19, 26, 28, 30 (MCACC), 47 (vs XT, DEQ), 72, 73, 90 (measurements)
93 (recommend dual combined mode), 108 (better grade mic), 109 (with Pro), 111,
113 (short vs long cal), 122 (-30 dBFS test tone), 140, 146 (THX), 149 (set small),
153 (phase shift at crossover), 175 (also 326, 328 LFE vs sub channel level),
192 (temp vs permanent transfer fn), 199 (2x XT taps), 202 (SEQ technology), 335 (DVE, Avia),
359 (hail mary level matching), 362 (73db RS SPL ~ 75-76dB actual) 376 (FAQ),
385 (Vista sucks), 412 (0 LFE attenuation), 477 (manual only as PDF)
465 (MultEQ XT Audyssey mic correction curve only applies at high frequencies; completely flat in the subwoofer range.)


users:
71 (SVS 3808CI, dual Ultra/2), 97 (one day),
132 (also 302..329, 346 Audiolab 8000AP, single SVS),
159 (RS SPL boosts bass), 172, 173 (AVP-A1HD, XLR-RCA),
203 (PC13-Ultra + M&K), 238 (AVP-A1HD), 247 (Tag av32r), 259 (also 275, 367 Yamaha RX-V 2700),
260 (also 290 Pioneer SC-07, PC 13 Ultra), 292 (also 349 six subs: LMS, Rythmiks, Maelstrom), 
298 (also 300, 307, 309, 312, 333, 373 Integra DTC-9.8 and single SVS PB2+dual 12 woofers)
332 (Lexicon MC12 V5eq, Legacy Audio FOCUS as mains and (2) PC Ultra/2 co-located)
356 (also 365 Denon + 4 subs), 369 (also 374 stereo subs),
380 (also 383 Yamaha, Paradigm Monitor speakers)
384 (Vista, Cary tube stereo preamp, Avantgarde Trio Omega speakers with Avantgarde large Basshorn)
391 (also 401 Denon AVR-4308CI, SVS PB12/Plus2 Sub), 478 (manual OK printed 2-up)
394 (also 408, no valid opinion after 2 hour compare to SMS-1: Integra SSP, dual Danley TH-SPUD subs)
403 (Onkyo 885, Velodyne HGS18MkII)

REW:
230 (warped FIR), 237 (URLs) 334(phase)


----------



## eugovector

Anyone have insight as to how the SVS unit differs from Audyssey's own branded unit?

http://www.audyssey.com/hometheater/subeq.html


----------



## blekenbleu

eugovector said:


> Anyone have insight as to how the SVS unit differs from Audyssey's own branded unit?


In appends #108-9, Ed Mullen indicated that Audyssey's directly accepts the Pro microphone,
so it probably differs analogously to how an Denon CI AVR differs from one with XT which does not support
Pro calibration.


----------



## Sonnie

I don't believe the Audyssey unit comes with a mic... it is s custom install unit and therefore you would need the install kit in addition to the unit to install it, which only custom installers are supposed to have access to. It also has a dual zone feature.


----------



## jbjb

Kal Rubinson said:


> It would be quite specific, perhaps too much so to be useful. Remember, these are not fixed filters but the results of many variables.
> 1. Speakers
> 2. Room setup
> 3. Mic #/placement variation from test to test
> 4. Calculations done in AVR vs. PC
> 5. Hardware
> 6. Skill/repeatability of user.


Indeed it would be quite specific. I should have made it clear that I wanted specific examples, i.e. a user who has both an AVR with MultEQ XT who later added the AS-EQ1 and who did testing on his own setup with everything the same.

I did not mean to compare MultEQ against the AS-EQ1 across different setups from different users.


----------



## jbjb

blekenbleu said:


> Have you seen append #403?
> 
> A mix of appends here from users, kibitzers and manufacturers reps
> makes interesting reading, but inefficient subsequent referencing.
> An extraction of append numbers original testimonies follows;
> apologies in advance for omissions:
> 
> SVS:
> 1, 14, 19, 26, 28, 30 (MCACC), 47 (vs XT, DEQ), 72, 73, 90 (measurements)
> 93 (recommend dual combined mode), 108 (better grade mic), 109 (with Pro), 111,
> 113 (short vs long cal), 122 (-30 dBFS test tone), 140, 146 (THX), 149 (set small),
> 153 (phase shift at crossover), 175 (also 326, 328 LFE vs sub channel level),
> 192 (temp vs permanent transfer fn), 199 (2x XT taps), 202 (SEQ technology), 335 (DVE, Avia),
> 359 (hail mary level matching), 362 (73db RS SPL ~ 75-76dB actual) 376 (FAQ),
> 385 (Vista sucks), 412 (0 LFE attenuation), 477 (manual only as PDF)
> 465 (MultEQ XT Audyssey mic correction curve only applies at high frequencies; completely flat in the subwoofer range.)
> 
> 
> users:
> 71 (SVS 3808CI, dual Ultra/2), 97 (one day),
> 132 (also 302..329, 346 Audiolab 8000AP, single SVS),
> 159 (RS SPL boosts bass), 172, 173 (AVP-A1HD, XLR-RCA),
> 203 (PC13-Ultra + M&K), 238 (AVP-A1HD), 247 (Tag av32r), 259 (also 275, 367 Yamaha RX-V 2700),
> 260 (also 290 Pioneer SC-07, PC 13 Ultra), 292 (also 349 six subs: LMS, Rythmiks, Maelstrom),
> 298 (also 300, 307, 309, 312, 333, 373 Integra DTC-9.8 and single SVS PB2+dual 12 woofers)
> 332 (Lexicon MC12 V5eq, Legacy Audio FOCUS as mains and (2) PC Ultra/2 co-located)
> 356 (also 365 Denon + 4 subs), 369 (also 374 stereo subs),
> 380 (also 383 Yamaha, Paradigm Monitor speakers)
> 384 (Vista, Cary tube stereo preamp, Avantgarde Trio Omega speakers with Avantgarde large Basshorn)
> 391 (also 401 Denon AVR-4308CI, SVS PB12/Plus2 Sub), 478 (manual OK printed 2-up)
> 394 (also 408, no valid opinion after 2 hour compare to SMS-1: Integra SSP, dual Danley TH-SPUD subs)
> 403 (Onkyo 885, Velodyne HGS18MkII)
> 
> REW:
> 230 (warped FIR), 237 (URLs) 334(phase)


Thanks for compiling that list. Appreciate the effort. 

I haven't read through all of them, but in the few I've read like #403, #394, #391, #384 I don't see any comparisons between MultEQ XT and AS-EQ1. They do talk about just the AS-EQ1 but not a comparison of the efficacy between the two.

Perhaps no one has done such a comparison yet and graphed it?


----------



## Kal Rubinson

jbjb said:


> Indeed it would be quite specific. I should have made it clear that I wanted specific examples, i.e. a user who has both an AVR with MultEQ XT who later added the AS-EQ1 and who did testing on his own setup with everything the same.
> 
> I did not mean to compare MultEQ against the AS-EQ1 across different setups from different users.


Understood but it is still a problem unless the tester undertakes this intentionally. For example, I have used the AS-EQ1 with my MultEQ XT-equipped Integra DTC-9.8 but the calibrations were done months apart and I have no doubt that the mic positions were different. Had I wanted to make a direct comparison, even in this very specific case, I would have had to do both calibrations on the same day with marked, repeatable mic positions but I didn't. I could post the results for you to compare as long as you don't try to draw any generalization from them.

_EDIT: I cannot post them until my review is published. September Stereophile._

Kal


----------



## jbjb

Kal Rubinson said:


> Understood but it is still a problem unless the tester undertakes this intentionally. For example, I have used the AS-EQ1 with my MultEQ XT-equipped Integra DTC-9.8 but the calibrations were done months apart and I have no doubt that the mic positions were different. Had I wanted to make a direct comparison, even in this very specific case, I would have had to do both calibrations on the same day with marked, repeatable mic positions but I didn't. I could post the results for you to compare as long as you don't try to draw any generalization from them.
> 
> _EDIT: I cannot post them until my review is published. September Stereophile._
> 
> Kal


Hi Kal, yes I'd appreciate having your results and I won't draw generalizations from them. You have a review of the AS-EQ1 coming out in September?


----------



## blekenbleu

jbjb said:


> Thanks for compiling that list. Appreciate the effort.


No problemo; it was something I did for myself before purchasing.



> I don't see any comparisons between MultEQ XT and AS-EQ1. They do talk about just the AS-EQ1 but not a comparison of the efficacy between the two.


Not sure what you are looking for, but did not let that stop me.
There are other AVRs in my list which have MultEQ. It appears that SubEQ owners,
MultEQ XT or other, are typically satisfied once they get levels balanced.

If you are interested in graphs,
there are REW plots for MultEQ in the REW thread/forum, which
generally confirm my own experience that MultEQ XT is more effective for cleaning
up mid-range than bass (although the key improvement for me was in imaging).

#373 has before and after REW plots.
#180 also shows before and after, although it looks to me an exercise in attempting
to compensate electronically for standing wave nulls.
A more extensive set of before/after REW plots for AS-EQ1 is here:
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/19393-rew-great.html

I found these REW plots of Audyssey Dynamic EQ interesting
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/16341-few-new-measurements.html

Some folks (myself included) conclude that flattest response curves produced using BFD with REW
are not the best-sounding.


----------



## jbjb

blekenbleu said:


> #373 has before and after REW plots.
> #180 also shows before and after, although it looks to me an exercise in attempting
> to compensate electronically for standing wave nulls.
> A more extensive set of before/after REW plots for AS-EQ1 is here:
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/19393-rew-great.html
> 
> I found these REW plots of Audyssey Dynamic EQ interesting
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/16341-few-new-measurements.html


#373 is the type of plot I'm looking for. Thanks for the heads up on that.



> Some folks (myself included) conclude that flattest response curves produced using BFD with REW are not the best-sounding.


That seems counter-intuitive right? Isn't the goal supposed to be the flattest curve possible? Boy I have so much to learn on this...


----------



## cavchameleon

Kal Rubinson said:


> Understood but it is still a problem unless the tester undertakes this intentionally. For example, I have used the AS-EQ1 with my MultEQ XT-equipped Integra DTC-9.8 but the calibrations were done months apart and I have no doubt that the mic positions were different. Had I wanted to make a direct comparison, even in this very specific case, I would have had to do both calibrations on the same day with marked, repeatable mic positions but I didn't. I could post the results for you to compare as long as you don't try to draw any generalization from them.
> 
> _EDIT: I cannot post them until my review is published. September Stereophile._
> 
> Kal


Awesome Kal! I've been waiting for your review on this product!!! I always look forward to your opinions and experience with equipment. Also, thanks for being part of the forum.

Ray


----------



## eugovector

blekenbleu said:


> In appends #108-9, Ed Mullen indicated that Audyssey's directly accepts the Pro microphone,
> so it probably differs analogously to how an Denon CI AVR differs from one with XT which does not support
> Pro calibration.


Well, if that's the main difference, it will be interesting to see what the Audyssey unit is priced at.


----------



## Sonnie

Kal Rubinson said:


> _EDIT: I cannot post them until my review is published. September Stereophile._
> 
> Kal


Ah... com'on... we can make it one of Zero Tolerance Forum Rules to not let anyone at Stereophile know about it. :heehee:


----------



## Sonnie

eugovector said:


> Well, if that's the main difference, it will be interesting to see what the Audyssey unit is priced at.


$800 MSRP

The Installer Kit MSRP is $550 and includes the following:


> Install kit used to calibrate the AUDYSSEY Sound Equalizer, Sound EQ Balanced,
> Sub EQ, or Integrated AVR technologies from Denon, Integra, and NAD. Kit
> includes: MultEQ Pro CD, Calibrated Microphone, Microphone Stand and Cables,
> Calibrated Preamplifier, XLR-to-RCA Adapter, USB Cables, Carrying Bag


----------



## cavchameleon

Sonnie said:


> $800 MSRP
> 
> The Installer Kit MSRP is $550 and includes the following:


Sonnie,

I do not think the installer kit is available to just anyone (only to installers and specific individuals that do not have an installer within a decent distance to residence - and when one is purchased for this reason, it only has the unlock code for the particular piece of equipment the customer is buying it for). There is a charge for every unlock code for every piece of equipment per serial number.

Ray


----------



## BigPines

jbjb said:


> Like you I have the Onkyo 876 and was just thinking about the question: since the 876 already has MultEQ XT would it be superfluous adding the AS-EQ1?
> 
> Your post above is informative but in my setup I only have 1 sub. So the dual sub capability of the AS-EQ1 is not relevant to me. While the AS-EQ1 might be better due to more resolution and processing power as you say, how much better is it?
> 
> Does anyone have a FR graph for a sub just with MultEQ XT applied vs AS-EQ1? That would be quite informative.


Good questions. If it were me, I would probably get the AS-EQ1 anyway because I know it would be better. However, given the fact that you only have one sub and the cost of the AS-EQ1 is a bit prohibitive, you may get the biggest bang for your buck somewhere else.

I have a solution for you...add another sub and the AS-EQ1! Problem solved. 

Seriously, if you want to find out how much value the unit adds, just get one. There is a 45 day money back guarantee if you don't feel the investment is worth the benefit.

Mike


----------



## drdoan

Because the Audyssey in your receiver must handle all frequencies, it will not have nearly as many to EQ the bass, tho it will have some. The Bass Audyssey focuses all of its processing power on the bass, hence a significant about of correction in the bass region. That, in turn, allows the receiver's Audyssey to concentrate on the upper frequencies. Mine is on order. Have fun, Dennis


----------



## Sonnie

cavchameleon said:


> Sonnie,
> 
> I do not think the installer kit is available to just anyone (only to installers and specific individuals that do not have an installer within a decent distance to residence - and when one is purchased for this reason, it only has the unlock code for the particular piece of equipment the customer is buying it for). There is a charge for every unlock code for every piece of equipment per serial number.
> 
> Ray


This is correct... and I should have noted that this is for custom installers only. You generally won't see this unit or the installer kit available to the retail public. The SVS version is basically the retail public version.


----------



## cavchameleon

Sonnie said:


> This is correct... and I should have noted that this is for custom installers only. You generally won't see this unit or the installer kit available to the retail public. The SVS version is basically the retail public version.


I assumed that was so and considering most of the population here on the forums, the SVS unit is better suited. Most here constantly tweak, change out equipment, move equipment, etc. and with the SVS unit, one can re-measure as often as needed. I know that I want that option :bigsmile:! 

Ray


----------



## Sonnie

Yup.... and we'll all get more support from SVS... that is for sure! :yes:


----------



## cavchameleon

Sonnie said:


> Yup.... and we'll all get more support from SVS... that is for sure! :yes:


I've heard that (or I should say read that) from a lot of forum members here and at AVS. I've also emailed them originally when this unit came out to get more info and received and email the same day from SVS tech support - found that pretty impressive. I don't have any SVS equipment yet - think this will be my first (very interested in this unit).

Ray


----------



## cavchameleon

Very quiet in here :whistling:

Any new experiences with the AS-EQ1? I think many are waiting for the August shipment (hopefully we won't be quiet until then) which is the next batch of units coming here, according to SVS.


----------



## Sonnie

I would like to see some more before and after measurements from those who have received theirs.


----------



## cavchameleon

^^^ Yep^^^

And if possible, do an average using the same mic positions in REW that were used for setup of the AS-EQ1. Even better, if someone already has an AVR with MultEQ XT, it would be great to see a comparison with and without the AS-EQ1. 

Ray


----------



## malikarshad

cavchameleon said:


> ^^^ Yep^^^
> 
> And if possible, do an average using the same mic positions in REW that were used for setup of the AS-EQ1. Even better, if someone already has an AVR with MultEQ XT, it would be great to see a comparison with and without the AS-EQ1.
> 
> Ray


Here is REW graph of before and after using AS-EQ1.
My Pre-pro is Integra DTC-9.8 with Audyssey MultEQ XT.Although this graph was taken with MultEQ off.
Purple line=> Before AS-EQ1
Blue line=>After AS-EQ1


----------



## Kal Rubinson

malikarshad said:


> Here is REW graph of before and after using AS-EQ1.
> My Pre-pro is Integra DTC-9.8 with Audyssey MultEQ XT.Although this graph was taken with MultEQ off.
> Purple line=> Before AS-EQ1
> Blue line=>After AS-EQ1


Help! First, I see three traces, not two. Second, as someone who is color-handicapped, I do not know which line is which. Is there any possibility of using highly contrasting colors, like blue, red, yellow, green, instead of having them all in the blue end of the spectrum?


----------



## Sonnie

How many positions did you measure?

Would it be too much to ask if you could measure with MultEQ on?

Thanks!


----------



## cavchameleon

Sonnie said:


> How many positions did you measure?
> 
> Would it be too much to ask if you could measure with MultEQ on?
> 
> Thanks!


+1

Also, is that dip at 80hz due to crossovers settings?


----------



## malikarshad

Kal Rubinson said:


> Help! First, I see three traces, not two. Second, as someone who is color-handicapped, I do not know which line is which. Is there any possibility of using highly contrasting colors, like blue, red, yellow, green, instead of having them all in the blue end of the spectrum?


Sorry did not realize this. I've changed the color on the graphs. I hope this helps.
I measured 9 positions.
The xover in Pre-pro is set to 80hz so i guess that might be the cause of dip.:dontknow:

Red=>After AS-EQ1
Green=>With MultEQ XT before AS-EQ1
Blue=>no EQ at all (MultEQ XT off and AS-EQ1 off)


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Thank you so much. 

Kal


----------



## eugovector

Respectable performance out of just the MultEQ but the AS-EQ1 definitely improves things, at least to the microphones' ears.


----------



## malikarshad

eugovector said:


> Respectable performance out of just the MultEQ but the AS-EQ1 definitely improves things, at least to the microphones' ears.


I agree. I've noticed significant difference in bass over MultEQ XT.


----------



## Sonnie

And we have to remember that this is after measuring 9 positions.


----------



## cavchameleon

Looks good malikarshad. Curious what it would look like if you did more positions (not just at ear level, but at a couple different heights in the listening area, not everyone's ear height is the same, since you have 32 to work with). Just wondering if it could be smoother (although that may be a pain with REW to replicate the same positions for averaging. 

Great work!


----------



## spearmint

Sonnie said:


> I would like to see some more before and after measurements from those who have received theirs.


Hello Sonnie, 

This IMO is one of the strangest releases of a new product with regard to owner’s feedback. The number of people who have bought one, and have indicated they would publish their impressions, and then nothing; likewise many don’t post their graphs.

One only need to read the hype and impressions when a new sub is released or a new AVR, yet this unit gets airplay either by potential owners, or a select few of owners.

I’m still happy with mine, next on my want list is the Audyssey Pro unit, to incorporate into my 2ch setup.


EDIT: and yes I did post a link to my graphs on page 15 of this thread (Just in case anyone wondered)


----------



## Sonnie

Hi Richard...

Yeah... it is strange that we have not seen any more graphs than we have, although some may not be that familiar with REW or how to post images from the program, etc.

If you are interested in the Audyssey Pro unit, which is custom installed, you might be interested in the Neptune EQ. I believe they are looking into developing a lesser expensive unit that what they offer now. Maybe it would worth talking with Ken of Neptune. They have a forum here at the Shack.

Thanks for your previously posted AS-EQ1 graphs... I did see them... :T


----------



## spearmint

Sonnie said:


> Hi Richard...
> 
> Yeah... it is strange that we have not seen any more graphs than we have, although some may not be that familiar with REW or how to post images from the program, etc.
> 
> If you are interested in the Audyssey Pro unit, which is custom installed, you might be interested in the Neptune EQ. I believe they are looking into developing a lesser expensive unit that what they offer now. Maybe it would worth talking with Ken of Neptune. They have a forum here at the Shack.
> 
> Thanks for your previously posted AS-EQ1 graphs... I did see them... :T


Hi Sonnie,

I have to admit to being slack in measuring my room using REW (excellent software BTW) for before and after, and publishing the results. 

Thank you for the information on the Neptune EQ, I’ll check it out. I’ve not heard or read anything about them, so now is as good a time as any.

I realise some are reluctant to click on links which go to other forums to read information. I posted the same info on SNA and AudioENZ forums, mainly since they fall into Peter from DeepHz the Australian/New Zealand reseller of the product, customer base.


----------



## cavchameleon

Richard,

GREAT write-up (and incredible room!!!). Thanks for the link to your review, I did not see that before. I think that Sonnie is right, that probably many of those with this unit do not know how to use REW (or never heard of it). Hopefully I'll be getting one of these in the near future and will post by before/after graphs with REW plus a thorough listening session with and without the unit. I do like Audyssey already does to my system, just want to improve the lower end.


----------



## TRiSS

cavchameleon said:


> I think that Sonnie is right, that probably many of those with this unit do not know how to use REW (or never heard of it).


Or maybe they're all just so impressed with the results that they don't (want to) bother to measure it in REW :daydream:

I ordered one, I have used rew + FBQ2496 before (thread here), and though the result was still far from perfect, it did help a lot already. Now I'm curious if the AS-EQ1 will be able to improve further... Thanks to the 45 day "trial" period, I'm only out of shipping if it doesn't...

When I get it (somewhere august I've been told) I am planning to do some before/after measurements in REW, and if by then anyone else but me is still interested, I'll post them!


----------



## stevefish69

My biggest tip with the EQ1 is to remove the front and place a small bit of paper behind the LED holes to mask those pesky Superbright LED's :coocoo:

Ed - Just a quick update on the 10db low Sub setting.

Since the Cinepro has arrived, i re-ran the level matching an all appears to be well. If you remember back, the Left channel is fixed on my Audiolab and the master volume is moved up / down to hit the 75db target. With the Parasounds, this used to be at -11db MV and with the new amp it's at -21db :scared:

I double checked with my SPL meter and when the master volume is at -11db with the gain where i now have it, both the mains and the Sub produce 85db. It looks like for some reason it was the gain input on the Parasounds that was causing the grief somehow, although i still can't get my head around it.

I do watch films at about -13 to -15db which in real terms should equate to being +8db above Ref :yikes: (If the films are mixed correctly), although IMHO it does not sound all that loud :scratchhead:

Is there any way to turn those lights down / off via a software update or will i have to mask them from now on.


----------



## wheatenterrier

To me part of the point in owning the EQ1 would be that I wouldn't have to mess with REW. I could set it up and it would do its thing then I could spend my time watching DVD's and listening to music rather than faffing with REW. I have used REW and it was a pain.
I don't own the EQ1 yet but hope to get one at some point. 

The only reason I would use REW is just to prove to my self that it is working. 
Thanks above for posting before and after results.


----------



## eugovector

It's important to remember that EQ is not a magic bullet. It can compensate for, but will not fix, problems from placement, room treatment, etc. REW will allow you to get as good of performance before EQ. The closer you are to perfect before EQ, the closer you'll be after EQ. EQ will get you the last 10 yards, so to speak.



wheatenterrier said:


> To me part of the point in owning the EQ1 would be that I wouldn't have to mess with REW.


----------



## BigPines

eugovector said:


> It's important to remember that EQ is not a magic bullet. It can compensate for, but will not fix, problems from placement, room treatment, etc. REW will allow you to get as good of performance before EQ. The closer you are to perfect before EQ, the closer you'll be after EQ. EQ will get you the last 10 yards, so to speak.


Excellent point. It is easy to forget that we should do everything possible ourselves before using EQ. REW helps us do exactly that. EQ should always be thought of as the 'when all else fails' solution. Unfortunately, 'all else' does fail a lot!

Mike


----------



## cavchameleon

wheatenterrier said:


> To me part of the point in owning the EQ1 would be that I wouldn't have to mess with REW. I could set it up and it would do its thing then I could spend my time watching DVD's and listening to music rather than faffing with REW. I have used REW and it was a pain.
> I don't own the EQ1 yet but hope to get one at some point.
> 
> The only reason I would use REW is just to prove to my self that it is working.
> Thanks above for posting before and after results.


I agree. I actually do not use REW to eq anything, it's only a tool for me to look at my room response and help with placement of speakers and acoustical treatment. It may be only a tool for my purpose, but it's an AWESOME one at that!!!


----------



## Sonnie

And as I just mentioned in another thread... electronic equalization devices are generally going to be the best bang for the buck when it comes to frequencies under 80Hz. Multiple subs around the room will get you a long way towards better overall bass response in multiple listening positions. Equalizing it electronically will get you even closer to that perfection you are looking for. No doubt SVS has really got something special here... dealing with many of the drawbacks to previous electronic device solutions.

REW is like gold... I love it... I love tinkering with it because it can show you soooo much about your room AND your equipment. It is amazing how many products have poor response... and REW will tell you all about it.

SVS EQ, multiple subs, treatments and REW = priceless!


----------



## spearmint

cavchameleon said:


> Richard,
> 
> GREAT write-up (and incredible room!!!). Thanks for the link to your review, I did not see that before.
> ~SNIP~


Thank you Ray,

I appreciate the kind words.


----------



## jpk

see next post, pics and text!
JPK


----------



## jpk

Sometimes it better to leave well enough alone? Now I opened a learning curve for REW. Actually I've been wanting to try it for a while.
SVS AS-EQ1 before doing anything;

 

SVS corrected;
 

Thought I'd join the crowd and try REW, although with RS digital meter for mic?
 

:gah: Now I'm not so happy? Would the CM-140 be better? ( I believe I need an adapter for the signal?) Should I buy a Berringer mic and pre? 
Where do I go from here? REW forum? 
I thought I'd add some graphs to this, I didn't expect what I consider a poor response displayed from REW.

Have I made a sophomore error somewhere?

Ideas, comments?
Thanks,
Joe

Next I'll learn how to get larger pics in the post!


----------



## cavchameleon

JPK,

REW does take a learning curve. The RS mic IMO is a terrible mic to use, it's only good for relative level matching. Also, if comparing REW to what the AS-EQ1 is doing with the freq, you need to do an average of the same mic positions for setting up Audyssey. Waterfall plots are also better indicative of what is happening in the room, not just a freq plot. Yes, the Behringer ECM8000 is a decent mic. There is a cal file here at the Shack, generic, but pretty good for home use. If you want absolutely accurate readings, you'll need a calibrated mic and also to calibrate you sound card. The ECM8000 does need phantom power an there are may choices (do a search here on the Shack as this question has come up a lot and there are some pretty good experts here to give you help). I use the Tascam US-144, but as I said, there are may others to choose from. Thanks for the work so far, once you pass the learning curve REW is an awesome tool!!!

The most important thing, how does you system sound with the AS-EQ1 on and off?

Ray

Ray


----------



## jpk

Ray,
I took a break and remembered to try moving the mic around, top pic RS meter straight up, middle pic, mic at 45 degree, AS-EQ1 on for both of those. Last pic, mic at 45, As-EQ1 is off. Impressive on minimizing the suck-outs. It does sound awesome , I'm just trying to reassure myself it's a wise investment. The SVS before curves could be like a "house curve"?
Joe
I do feel better now.


----------



## brucek

> Now I'm not so happy? Would the CM-140 be better?


The RS meter is fine for home use as long as you stick to measuring below ~3KHz and use the cal file provided on our download site.



> top pic RS meter straight up, middle pic, mic at 45 degree


The recommendation is oriented vertically with a forward angle of about 10 - 20 degrees.



> The SVS before curves could be like a "house curve"?


Personally, I preferred your before curve with no EQ, although it's always hard to tell when the plots are smoothed.
As suggested already, it's more revealing to use waterfall plots combined with your response plots.

brucek


----------



## jpk

Thanks Bruce,
I’ve re-read the manual for REW and decided to do some more listening before any more tweaks and measurements. I also did some reading on the REW forum. I had a few minutes last night and my daughter wanted to hear some Beatles, so I played the Love songs DVD-A. There was definitely more bass with the EQ on. Sometimes almost too much bass? Maybe the recording over emphasizes it? (Subs cancelling each other w/o EQ?) I’ll try to get a with and w/o waterfall in the next day or two.
Joe


----------



## cavchameleon

Joe,

Glad to see you're on track with REW. It'll be good to see your waterfall plots. A LOT of older recording were equalized when recorded (emphasized bass and upper treble) due to the short comings of much of the equipment at the time, especially in the speakers area. Most recording studios track and mix down on high quality speakers, but also check the recording on 'cheap' speakers with limited bandwidth since the assumption is that most of the audience will have cheaper equipment (i.e. car audio, etc.). Not to say that all newer recordings are all that great either - way too much compression used IMO on a lot of them (it's amazing that we have >100db capable dynamic range on a red-book cd and a lot of studios compress the recordings to only have 5db-10db dynamic range).

Ray


----------



## jpk

Brucek , Ray, everyone,
Here are two waterfalls, the first with SVS off and the second w/SVS on. I’m still surprised how slight movements of the mic radically change the response. I’ll refrain from saying anything else until you see them. Of course, both of these were taken w/ mic in same position.
Joe


----------



## brucek

Interesting that the EQ didn't appear to do much for the decay problem at ~20Hz.

Even after a half second the signal is still in the audible range.

brucek


----------



## Sonnie

brucek said:


> Interesting that the EQ didn't appear to do much for the decay problem at ~20Hz.
> 
> Even after a half second the signal is still in the audible range.
> 
> brucek


I thought that was what we called "rumble"... :heehee: Oh wait... as we use to call it in our cars... that sub can sure "hold a note". :bigsmile:


----------



## jpk

2ea x 15" sealed subs at 125 lbs ea holding a note? I know you were kidding Sonnie.

I was hoping someone would have looked at the waterfalls and said “Your problem is a,b and c, you need to do x,y&z to fix it!:bigsmile:

I think a couple of things are going on here:

REW could be using a longer duration signal / sweep than SVS's (relative) ping?

I have a resonance problem in the Man Cave :hissyfit:, foot thick concrete walls better not be resonating! There is a partition wall with cheap paneling that may contribute to the problem, but I’m thinking the ductwork and primarily the air return sheet metal is at least the major cause of things.
Has anyone experienced this or know where I can find information to verify and remedy it?:reading: Tapping on the air return seems to have a resonance.

Man Cave = 22 x 26 x 7 ft. w/drop ceiling, 0.5 inch rigid fiberglass ceiling panels. Padded carpeted floor, one side wall partitioned and paneled.

Have a great 4th of July weekend!

Joe


----------



## brucek

> I have a resonance problem in the Man Cave ,foot thick concrete walls better not be resonating!


The modal resonance (at ~21Hz) is a function of the room size. The concrete won't stop that from happening. Your 26x21x7 dimensioned room has length and width primary axial resonance modes at 21.7Hz and 25.7Hz. That looks about right for the long decay you're experiencing. Your duct work and air return sheet metal have little to nothing to do with the problem.

Parametric EQ filters operate both in the frequency and the time domain (just as a modal resonance does). So applying filters, whose gain and bandwidth are carefully matched to a resonant peak, both the excess amplitude and the excess decay time will be nullified.

brucek


----------



## Kal Rubinson

brucek said:


> The modal resonance (at ~21Hz) is a function of the room size. The concrete won't stop that from happening.


Right. In fact, they will support this node better (for worse consequences) than more flimsy, lossy room boundaries. I know this from theory and practice.

Kal


----------



## jpk

brucek said:


> Parametric EQ filters operate both in the frequency and the time domain (just as a modal resonance does). So applying filters, whose gain and bandwidth are carefully matched to a resonant peak, both the excess amplitude and the excess decay time will be nullified.
> brucek


I’m wondering if I did something wrong setting up the SVS? (Although SVS's graphs looked good.) Am I expecting too much from the unit or if my unit has a problem? 

Although it’s advertised:
“Harness the power and refinement of your system, and take the room out of the equation, finally.”

Ideas, Comments?

Thanks,
Joe


----------



## Sonnie

It might be good to have Ed chime in, but I would not blame them for taking the weekend off for the 4th either. :T


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

brucek said:


> Parametric EQ filters operate both in the frequency and the time domain (just as a modal resonance does).





brucek said:


> Interesting that the EQ didn't appear to do much for the decay problem at ~20Hz.



Perhaps this is why (emphasis added)?


Ron Stimpson said:


> The SubEQ results are just jaw-dropping. The worse your room is, the better this box works to make it right. It corrects for acoustical room anomalies not with the brute-force manipulation of crude IIR filters found in conventional PEQs, but instead with the finesse and sophistication of FIR-based filters *which don’t cause phase/time-domain anomalies* and distortions which corrupt your sound.



But then, that does seem to contradict this (emphasis added)...


Ron Stimpson said:


> *Features*
> 
> 
> Driven by an advanced Digital Signal Processor (DSP) using sophisticated Audyssey customized room-correction algorithms
> Utilizes Adaptive Low Frequency Correction Technology (ALFC) from Audyssey Lab the most advanced bass calibration method available to consumers today
> *Performs in both frequency and time domain*, for superior artifact-free bass adapted for your room
> Dual subwoofer processing for better blending and integration with main channels
> *FIR filters to avoid time/phase distortion* inherent with IIR filters for superior bass clarity
> Corrects bass for an incredible 32 positions in horizontal and vertical space to cover any listening area
> [*] Heavy-duty steel chassis with SVS's magnetically-retained CNC'd aluminum face-plate
> [*] Twin sub in, twin out, with multiple configuration modes. Mains level calibration signal output jack.
> [*] Easy-to-use laptop PC graphical user interface (GUI) and CD operating software and users' guide
> [*] Dedicated Audyssey microphone and AV receiver external calibration pass thru cables included
> [*] High quality, isolated 12V. power supply, and USB cable included
> [*] On-line SVS tech support page for easy software updates, upgrades and news
> [*] Power and unit status LEDs
> [*] Front-panel easy access for calibration microphone and USB connection
> [*]Final test and assembly in SVS's Ohio headquarters
> [*]Limited production, world-wide distribution only by exclusive SVS resellers




Wonder which it is? :huh:

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Timoxx4

I think it maybe means that the FIR filters don't induce any unwanted time/phase distortion when it dose its thing. It only adjust for time/phase if needed and is not a by product of its normal frequency adjustments.

Where as the IIR filters found on your run of the mill PEQ or GEQ will actually cause some time/phase anomalies of its own when applying its more basic filters.So IIR can add time/phase problems when in use by accident, where as the FIR method only corrects for time/phase if needed and will not add anything that it shouldn't.

If my understanding is correct and makes sense ?

I think that’s what the above means anyway.


----------



## Ed Mullen

Timoxx4 said:


> I think it maybe means that the FIR filters don't induce any unwanted time/phase distortion when it dose its thing. It only adjust for time/phase if needed and is not a by product of its normal frequency adjustments.
> 
> Where as the IIR filters found on your run of the mill PEQ or GEQ will actually cause some time/phase anomalies of its own when applying its more basic filters.So IIR can add time/phase problems when in use by accident, where as the FIR method only corrects for time/phase if needed and will not add anything that it shouldn't.
> 
> If my understanding is correct and makes sense ?
> 
> I think that’s what the above means anyway.


This is essentially correct; the minimum phase FIR filters do not introduce phase anomalies unlike IIR filters can, particularly with a high Q factor. 

The AS-EQ1 generates an impulse response and does indeed look at the time domain component (ringing profile) of the room when it builds the minimum phase FIR filter solution, as opposed to just looking at the magnitude response. 

With that said, it naturally gives precedence to the magnitude response. Completely suppressing that 21 Hz room mode would probably require a significant depression of the FR at that frequency. If you have a conventional PEQ, you can try to confirm this by cascading the PEQ over the AS-EQ1 solution and notching out the response at 20-22 Hz until the decay profile over that bandwidth falls into line with the remainder of the pass band. 

As an aside, it would be interesting to see the magnitude response of an EQ solution which gives precedence to the time domain response. I suspect it would be anything but flat. 

Probably the best way to summarize would be the AS-EQ1 gives precendence to the amplitude response, it does address the time domain response to the extent doing so won't significantly compromise the amplitude response, and the minimum phase FIR filters do not introduce phase anomalies.


----------



## brucek

> FIR filters do not introduce phase anomalies


Ed, it's been my rudimentary understanding that while FIR filters are considered superior due to their linear phase, IIR filters (BFD, et.al) are quite well suited when used at frequencies below ~100Hz, as their characteristics of a 2nd order biquad match that of room modes. Room modes behave as 2nd order biquads and can be nullified (at a given listening position) if the IIR filters gain, bandwidth and center frequency carefully match the mode.

In experiments where detractors claimed the BFD didn't operate in the time domain, experimentation (here) showed how both magnitude and ringing tail can be completely nullified (at the listening position of course).

What was the reasoning for going the FIR route?

brucek


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

On top of that, why is “not introducing phase anomalies” such a big deal? There are “phase anomalies” all over the room because sound is bouncing around all over the place, especially low frequencies which are omnidirectional. 

The following is not from Rane’s Exposing Equalizer Mythology, "#6: An ideal equalizer would add no phase shift when boosting or cutting:" (emphasis added)

_Phase shift is not a bad word. It is the glue at the heart of what we do, holding everything together. That it has become a maligned term is most unfortunate. This belief stands in the way of people really understanding the requirements for room equalization.

Associated with each change in amplitude is a corresponding change in phase response. Describing them as unbelievably jagged is being conservative. Every time the amplitude changes so does the phase shift. In fact, it can be argued that phase shift is the stuff that causes amplitude changes. *Amplitude, phase and time are all inextricably mixed by the physics of sound. One does not exist without the others.*_

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Ed Mullen

Let's not confuse phase change as it relates to amplitude change, and phase anomalies caused by the filter itself. Of course phase will change if FR changes; the two are inextricably tied by Fourier transform. And when the amplitude of a room peak is reduced, the room ring time at that frequency is also reduced. 

Audyssey feels that IIR filters with high Q (narrow band) factors have phase problems which are indeed audible. And attempting to avoid high Q filter values (by using wider filters with less resolution) simply causes them to overlap neighboring bands, thus reducing the efficacy of the EQ solution. Furthermore, Audyssey applies a proprietary pyschoacoustic weighting to its filter coefficients in order to apply filter correction appropriately. The combination of eliminating audible IIR phase problems by employing minumum phase FIR filters, and the use of pyschoacoustic weighting on the filter coefficients, results in a superior sounding EQ solution. This has been proven out by enthusiasts comparing their previous EQ solution (e.g., SMS-1, Behringer BFD, etc.) to the AS-EQ1 - the overwhelming consensus is the AS-EQ1 simply sounds better. And filter theory aside, isn't that what really matters the most to the end-user? 

Enthusiats are certainly free to disagree with Audyssey's position on filter theory, and should they choose to, I recommend taking-up the debate directly with Audyssey. While SVS had a major hand in developing the AS-EQ1, we obviously did not design MultEQ XT Pro EQ correction technology - we chose Audyssey for that, because we feel they are industry leaders in the field of EQ correction technology. I can help anyone with AS-EQ1 set-up and operation, but if you want to debate filter theory and what you like or dislike about MultEQ XT Pro, take it up with Chris Kyriakakis.


----------



## jpk

Ed Mullen said:


> If you have a conventional PEQ, you can try to confirm this by cascading the PEQ over the AS-EQ1 solution and notching out the response at 20-22 Hz until the decay profile over that bandwidth falls into line with the remainder of the pass band.
> 
> As an aside, it would be interesting to see the magnitude response of an EQ solution which gives precedence to the time domain response. I suspect it would be anything but flat.


Ed,
I don't have any other EQ devices to try. 
For good, bad or otherwise I believe I'm the only one that posted waterfall graphs / plots, it would be interesting to see others!
The resonance at about 21 Hz looks pretty bad to me. Where do I go from here?
Thanks,
Joe


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

> ...if you want to debate filter theory and what you like or dislike about MultEQ XT Pro, take it up with Chris Kyriakakis.


Heh heh – very diplomatic response, Ed!  I’m not smart enough to debate filter designs, just the oft-touted nonsense that phase introduced by equalizers is inherently a bad thing. But on the other hand, I can understand that with FIR filters in the game, that stance may need to be re-evaluated... 



> Audyssey feels that IIR filters with high Q (narrow band) factors have phase problems which are indeed audible. And attempting to avoid high Q filter values (by using wider filters with less resolution) simply causes them to overlap neighboring bands, thus reducing the efficacy of the EQ solution. Furthermore, Audyssey applies a proprietary pyschoacoustic weighting to its filter coefficients in order to apply filter correction appropriately. The combination of eliminating audible IIR phase problems by employing minumum phase FIR filters, and the use of pyschoacoustic weighting on the filter coefficients, results in a superior sounding EQ solution.


Cutting through Audyssey’s techno-babble, what you’re saying is that FIR filters allow the AS-EQ1 to use a multitude of high Q filters to achieve flat response by addressing every little ripple?



> This has been proven out by enthusiasts comparing their previous EQ solution (e.g., SMS-1, Behringer BFD, etc.) to the AS-EQ1 - the overwhelming consensus is the AS-EQ1 simply sounds better. And filter theory aside, isn't that what really matters the most to the end-user?


 No argument there. I’ve always said that an improvement in sound quality is the goal of equalization. :T

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## bpape

Regardless of the type of filtering, if the center frequency and Q are not exactly the same as the problem frequency, ringing can actually get worse instead of better. If the Q is adjustable on your unit, experiment with it and see what you can do. 

While it won't help with the ringing, you can certainly potentially smooth the hump in response via simple seating and sub positional changes.

Bryan

Bryan


----------



## Ed Mullen

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Cutting through Audyssey’s techno-babble, what you’re saying is that FIR filters allow the AS-EQ1 to use a multitude of high Q filters to achieve flat response by addressing every little ripple?
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


I don't believe FIR filters have a Q factor in the conventional sense, but yes - the AS-EQ1 has very high filter resolution and the EQ solution it generates (which you can measure by looping the device itself) would be very difficult if not impossible to duplicate with a manual IIR based PEQ - lots of very closely spaced and sharply peaked boosts and cuts.


----------



## jpk

bpape said:


> Regardless of the type of filtering, if the center frequency and Q are not exactly the same as the problem frequency, ringing can actually get worse instead of better. If the Q is adjustable on your unit, experiment with it and see what you can do.
> 
> While it won't help with the ringing, you can certainly potentially smooth the hump in response via simple seating and sub positional changes.
> 
> Bryan
> 
> Bryan


Thanks Bryan,
The unit is totally auto-magic, other than moving the mike and sampling to average the response over a wide area.

I did follow your advice in "general no-no's for good sound" and moved the subs along the wall, (but not in corners), they were out like coffee tables, the expected 2-3 db gain was achieved along with some smoothing.

Maybe I should move this to another forum or ? 
With this kind of LF resonance, in this room, is it possible or even practical to trap it? My understanding is low bass requires massive amounts of traps?

Thanks,
Joe


----------



## bpape

21Hz isn't really practical with velocity absorbers. You can do some tuned Helmholz type absorbers but being tuned that low, they can have their own issues. 

Really, your best bet is to try to use seating and sub locations to try to compensate and to avoid being where the mode is prevalent - though that won't help with ringing.

If you can potentially add a secondary PEQ in the sub loop that you can tweak center and Q, that might also help some.

Bryan


----------



## Ed Mullen

jpk said:


> I have a resonance problem in the Man Cave :hissyfit:, foot thick concrete walls better not be resonating! There is a partition wall with cheap paneling that may contribute to the problem, but I’m thinking the ductwork and primarily the air return sheet metal is at least the major cause of things.
> Has anyone experienced this or know where I can find information to verify and remedy it?:reading: Tapping on the air return seems to have a resonance.
> 
> Man Cave = 22 x 26 x 7 ft. w/drop ceiling, 0.5 inch rigid fiberglass ceiling panels. Padded carpeted floor, one side wall partitioned and paneled.
> 
> Joe


Your room has an obvious and aggressive resonance at that frequency. Once that frequency is excited by the subwoofer, the room will ring for a certain period of time. This is a function of the room dims and the physical construction of the wall/ceiling/floor boundaries and the building materials. 

You could certainly be onto the cause - not that I can bird dog the problem from here, but I suspect it's either your suspended ceiling tile grid-work or your ductwork. I've seen ceiling tile gridwork ring (both visibly and on the decay chart) for well over 1000 ms at its resonance frequency. Certain size/length/shape ductwork can also have a resonance frequency in the subwoofer pass band. Not that this is the case in your room, but other gremlins can be flexible partition walls, large window panes, and even the flooring - all of them can be considered "lossy" boundaries which can resonate in the subwoofer pass band. 

Based on the dimensions of your room, the longest dim is (typically top corner diagonally to lower corner) is probably right about 34 feet. So unfortunately the room is large enough to support a 20-22 Hz mode, which has a 1/2 wavelength of about 26-28 feet. I was hoping this was not the case in an email I had sent you earlier today, but now that I've seen your room dims it is definitely possible, so I sent you a follow-up email. Most HT rooms are much smaller than yours and cannot support a mode at this frequency and are well into the pressure response and attendant room gain by this frequency. 

Regardless, the less energy the subwoofer imparts to the room at this frequency, the shorter the ring time. As Bryan states, you could certainly notch-out the 20-22 Hz band more aggressively with a manual PEQ cascaded over the AS-EQ1 solution until the ring time falls more into line with the remainder of the pass band, but I doubt the FR would remain flat at that point. No conventional bass trap will be effective that deep, but a Helmholtz trap might work, as Bryan indicated. Maybe he could build you one or at least point you in the right direction. 

Regardless, we’re perfectly OK with a return if you are unhappy with the AS-EQ1, but since you said earlier it sounded awesome, maybe you could first look more closely at your room boundaries and other materials of construction which could be resonating in the subwoofer pass band, and/or manually cascading a PEQ over the AS-EQ1, and/or a custom trap tuned to that mode. If not - then we're cool if you want to throw in the towel and we can process a return promptly - just let us know in Tech Support. Thanks!


----------



## jpk

Ed Mullen said:


> Regardless, the less energy the subwoofer imparts to the room at this frequency, the shorter the ring time. As Bryan states, you could certainly notch-out the 20-22 Hz band more aggressively with a manual PEQ cascaded over the AS-EQ1 solution until the ring time falls more into line with the remainder of the pass band, but I doubt the FR would remain flat at that point. No conventional bass trap will be effective that deep, but a Helmholtz trap might work, as Bryan indicated. Maybe he could build you one or at least point you in the right direction.
> 
> Regardless, we’re perfectly OK with a return if you are unhappy with the AS-EQ1, but since you said earlier it sounded awesome, maybe you could first look more closely at your room boundaries and other materials of construction which could be resonating in the subwoofer pass band, and/or manually cascading a PEQ over the AS-EQ1, and/or a custom trap tuned to that mode. If not - then we're cool if you want to throw in the towel and we can process a return promptly - just let us know in Tech Support. Thanks!


Thanks Ed,
I appreciate this, I would like to try a couple of things. I didn't even think of the flooring (actually ceiling in this case). I'll check with some of the local talent here, Maybe I can borrow a PEQ?
Joe


----------



## Ed Mullen

jpk said:


> Thanks Ed,
> I appreciate this, I would like to try a couple of things. I didn't even think of the flooring (actually ceiling in this case). I'll check with some of the local talent here, Maybe I can borrow a PEQ?
> Joe


I've seen an entire suspended ceiling tile gridwork resonate so badly at 25 Hz that the entire structure visibly shook for well over a second after the excitation source was terminated. I'm not saying that is the case in your room - only that it's possible. 

I've also seen and measured a similar phenomenon with cheaply made wooden flooring over an open basement - literally turns into a trampoline at certain frequencies (which is why I detest it for critical audio applications). 

Before relying on a PEQ, I would first attempt to identify any obvious resonances from objects/structures in the room by using a slow reverse sine sweep or discrete test tones (don't fry your voice coils though - be careful). If you discover something resonating badly, try to remedy the problem in the physical domain through structural modifications rather than simply attempting to reduce the strength of the excitation frequency. 

It could also turn out that your room simply has a strong acoustic mode at 20-22 Hz and nothing is obviously resonating. In that case a Helmholtz bass trap might work, or you could try the cascading PEQ route (or both). You might need a bunch of cut at 20-22 Hz to bring down that ring time though. 

If push comes to shove, I have a spare Rane PE-17 I could send you as a loaner. It's a nice unit and can easily notch-out a 20-22 Hz resonance with a high Q filter. It does have a fixed 10 Hz 2nd order high pass, though (just starts to affect the FR at ~14 Hz). If the Rane works, you can either purchase it, or return it to me and purchase a less expensive Behringer digital PEQ (I think the FBQ 2496 is only ~$150 street).


----------



## bpape

26ft, 21Hz, that's pretty obvious in my book. Yes - something is skewing it slightly but ceiling tiles rattling aren't going to be at 21Hz. Sorry. 

If you have a drop ceiling, the FIRST thing I'd do is make sure that over your head and around the perimeter are stuffed to the hard surface above with insulation before you do anything eles.

Bryan


----------



## Ed Mullen

bpape said:


> 26ft, 21Hz, that's pretty obvious in my book. Yes - something is skewing it slightly but ceiling tiles rattling aren't going to be at 21Hz. Sorry.
> 
> If you have a drop ceiling, the FIRST thing I'd do is make sure that over your head and around the perimeter are stuffed to the hard surface above with insulation before you do anything eles.
> 
> Bryan


The room can clearly support a 21 Hz mode based on its room dims and I've said as much. 

Please don't question the validity of my personal observations - I have witnessed an entire suspended ceiling gridwork support structure (not individual tiles) with a sympathetic resonance at 25 Hz. The entire ceiling would visibly and obviously resonate at that frequency even long after the signal stopped.


----------



## bpape

Sorry Ed. I'm not questioning the room resonance at all. I was merely pointing out that the 26ft and 21hz were very close to being exactly related. It's not a matter of supporting it, it's a matter of exciting it. It will also support 25Hz, 30Hz, etc. but those aren't there.

Yes. Suspended ceilings can resonate very low in frequency. I just think that based on the graphs and length/intensity of the 21hz, it's unlikely that that's the issue specifically and solely.

I suggested that filling the ceiling would not only provide broadband bass control, but would also damp the ceiling resonance if in fact that's part of the issue. Sorry if I didn't spell that out exactly. I assumed it was understood that it would do both by default.

Bryan


----------



## Ed Mullen

Understood and agreed - thanks for clarifying, Bryan. This does look like a clear-cut axial mode based on the half-wavelength and the room dims. And stuffing the suspended ceiling won't make that go away, but could help damp other resonances if they exist. 

In retrospect, I think all you were saying is that it's unlikely the ceiling gridwork has the same resonance as the axial room mode, and you're probably right - the chances of them being coincident are low - but it's possible.


----------



## cavchameleon

Wow, LOTs of discussion here lately! Thanks a lot Ed for all your info (and your's also Bryan). One question Ed, so are you against using a drop ceiling at all? I'm helping my brother set up his room and they were thinking going this route (my route was to use broadband traps as I did in my room, but they want a better asthetic result).

Thanks,
Ray


----------



## bpape

Ed Mullen said:


> Understood and agreed - thanks for clarifying, Bryan. This does look like a clear-cut axial mode based on the half-wavelength and the room dims. And stuffing the suspended ceiling won't make that go away, but could help damp other resonances if they exist.
> 
> In retrospect, I think all you were saying is that it's unlikely the ceiling gridwork has the same resonance as the axial room mode, and you're probably right - the chances of them being coincident are low - but it's possible.


Agreed. That's a much clearer way to state it than I did.

Bryan


----------



## Ed Mullen

cavchameleon said:


> Wow, LOTs of discussion here lately! Thanks a lot Ed for all your info (and your's also Bryan). One question Ed, so are you against using a drop ceiling at all? I'm helping my brother set up his room and they were thinking going this route (my route was to use broadband traps as I did in my room, but they want a better asthetic result).
> 
> Thanks,
> Ray


Personally I don't like or recommend them. If the cavity is fully stuffed, then I suppose it would OK, but the potential is still there for the gridwork to buzz/rattle.

I would much rather see a solid ceiling populated with a bunch of GIK 242 acoustic panels at the strategic reflection points. But I understand that can be an aesthetic downgrade from a homogeneous drop ceiling. 

Still, the GIK 242 comes in several colors, so matching the room paint scheme shouldn't be too difficult. If the system will be front projection, the ceiling (or the majority of it) should be flat black anyway. Try finding a black suspended ceiling tile and metal gridwork, or worse yet try painting and existing one flat black. 

I have a flat black ceiling and black 242-style (DIY OC703) panels on the ceiling in my reference music/theater room.


----------



## bpape

I'll just add a bit to what Ed said. In addition to the possibility of buzzing/rattling, you also are reducing your shot at good isolation (sound getting IN is as important as sound getting out as it can raise the ambient noise level of the room)

Bryan


----------



## cavchameleon

Thanks Ed and Bryan! I'll relay the info to my brother. I was very much against a drop ceiling (they did not do it yet and have a finished, sheetrocked) 12' ceiling, so we have a lot of room to work with. I did my own DIY broadband traps using BAC (bonded acoustical cotton). My brother and his wife will not go the DIY route, so I'll show them the GIK site - I think they can come to some type of agreement on a color that will fit, especially if they paint the ceiling a close color to the traps. Drop ceiling just seem to have WAY to many possible buzzing points (too many 'movable' contact points).

I can't wait to get my hands on the AS-EQ1, when in August are they shipping out?

Thanks,
Ray


----------



## jpk

Ed Mullen said:


> Before relying on a PEQ, I would first attempt to identify any obvious resonances from objects/structures in the room by using a slow reverse sine sweep or discrete test tones (don't fry your voice coils though - be careful). If you discover something resonating badly, try to remedy the problem in the physical domain through structural modifications rather than simply attempting to reduce the strength of the excitation frequency.
> 
> 
> If push comes to shove, I have a spare Rane PE-17 I could send you as a loaner. It's a nice unit and can easily notch-out a 20-22 Hz resonance with a high Q filter. It does have a fixed 10 Hz 2nd order high pass, though (just starts to affect the FR at ~14 Hz). If the Rane works, you can either purchase it, or return it to me and purchase a less expensive Behringer digital PEQ (I think the FBQ 2496 is only ~$150 street).


Thanks for the offer Ed, I'm going to take a rain check for now. 
Last night through my Oppo uni player, I played Super Bass CD w/pre-pro in 2ch mode. Unlistenable from the start, but I did some troubleshooting and I believe the cold air return is the major culprit! I have a call into a HVAC guy. Hopefully he doesn't call the men in the white coats on me!
Later, I replayed it through the 7.1 analog lines, sounded much better and listenable. Nothing like major bass boost to accentuate problems! 10 pages or so back you discussed 2ch bass boost / offset, etc. I'll tweek that tonight.

I understand the room dimensions are not optimal, but if I'm right and this ringing gets reduced substantially, it'll be a lot better!

Joe


----------



## cavchameleon

bpape said:


> The problem is that while the flex or duct board is great at not passing vibrations and absorbing mids and highs, it has almost no mass to it so it's effectively a hole for bass to pass through.
> 
> Yes - you want bends and length but you want those to occur starting where it enters your room 'aquarium' and goes for at least 15' with at least 3 90 degree bends in it before leaving the MDF box (the mass).
> 
> Think of it this way... If you cut a hole in the ceiling that you just spent a ton of time sealing up and getting sound proofed, and then just put 1/4" thick insulation in the flex or the 3/4" duct board, you effectively have a hole in your ceiling for bass to pass straight up to and through the subfloor above you.
> 
> *I don't mind answering the questions at all. In all fairness to the purpose of this thread, we should probably continue it somewhere else. *
> 
> Bryan


Thanks Bryan!!! Sorry if this thread got derailed. Here is a new one continuing this topic:

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/svsound/19973-ducting-home-theaters.html#post176538

Much appreciated!!!
Ray


----------



## XxxBERRYxxX

I have two SVS subs that would love to be hooked up to one of these bad boys! SVS makes awesome subs and I can't even imagine how much better they would sound coupled with this!


----------



## cavchameleon

SVS does make Awesome subs! But, the room is a HUGE factor and no matter how good a sub is, there will always be issues. So the AS-EQ1 would most likely make a very big difference for 99.99% out there (there 'may' be that 1% that have a 'perfect' room - have not heard any yet).

Ray


----------



## jpk

Ed or Doug,
I was re-setting up the EQ again last night, I’ve done this several times since receiving the unit, this time an error message window pops up during the first position.
Sub Eq Ch3, satellite-warning, The type of speaker detected does not match the type specified in the zone config.
Do you wish to cancel? I said no and went on; the volume to the left satellite gets ramped way up and another window pops up:
Multi Eq error: Max level was reached without achieving adequate signal. Please decrease ambient noise and try again.
I closed the software, powered down the EQ box for 1 minute, powered up Eq unit, restarted software. This time I got to position seven before the max level error.
What could be going on?
Thanks,
Joe


----------



## Doug McBride

jpk said:


> Ed or Doug,
> I was re-setting up the EQ again last night, I’ve done this several times since receiving the unit, this time an error message window pops up during the first position.
> Sub Eq Ch3, satellite-warning, The type of speaker detected does not match the type specified in the zone config.
> Do you wish to cancel? I said no and went on; the volume to the left satellite gets ramped way up and another window pops up:
> Multi Eq error: Max level was reached without achieving adequate signal. Please decrease ambient noise and try again.
> I closed the software, powered down the EQ box for 1 minute, powered up Eq unit, restarted software. This time I got to position seven before the max level error.
> What could be going on?
> Thanks,
> Joe


Joe - I have not seen this particular error, but I have seen errors indicating the background noise was too great for it to get a good reading (and it was pretty sensitive - lawn mower about 100 feet away through closed windows).

I'd suggest trying a few things to see if the issue won't go away:

1. Remove power from the unit (unplug) for a minute then re-power.
2. Do a quick 3 measurement cal and permanently save the results to the AS-EQ1.
3. Make sure your microphone connection is clean and tight into the AS-EQ1, as well as checking the physical integrity of the mic itself.
4. Make sure you are using known and verified good interconnects between the AS-EQ1 and your receiver.
5. De-install, then re-install SubEQ.

Steps 1, 2 and 5 are intended to reset and get to a known good state with the device and software. Step 3 and 4 are making sure connections and hardware are sound.

Sorry if these seems a little "shotgun-y", but we've not seen this before. Let us know how it turns out and if these steps do not rectify, we'll take it to Audyssey.

Edit: I just assumed you went through the Level Match process OK, but you know what happens when you assume... Did you, and how did that work out? Are you using the Multi-Channel analog inputs for the Sat? Any digital processing on that input disabled (usually isn't any but I had to ask)?

Thanks,

Doug


----------



## jpk

Doug McBride said:


> Joe - I have not seen this particular error, but I have seen errors indicating the background noise was too great for it to get a good reading (and it was pretty sensitive - lawn mower about 100 feet away through closed windows).
> 
> I'd suggest trying a few things to see if the issue won't go away:
> 
> 1. Remove power from the unit (unplug) for a minute then re-power.
> 2. Do a quick 3 measurement cal and permanently save the results to the AS-EQ1.
> 3. Make sure your microphone connection is clean and tight into the AS-EQ1, as well as checking the physical integrity of the mic itself.
> 4. Make sure you are using known and verified good interconnects between the AS-EQ1 and your receiver.
> 5. De-install, then re-install SubEQ.
> 
> Steps 1, 2 and 5 are intended to reset and get to a known good state with the device and software. Step 3 and 4 are making sure connections and hardware are sound.
> 
> Sorry if these seems a little "shotgun-y", but we've not seen this before. Let us know how it turns out and if these steps do not rectify, we'll take it to Audyssey.
> 
> Edit: I just assumed you went through the Level Match process OK, but you know what happens when you assume... Did you, and how did that work out? Are you using the Multi-Channel analog inputs for the Sat? Any digital processing on that input disabled (usually isn't any but I had to ask)?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Doug


Thanks Doug,

Level match went OK. House should have been quiet? It was after dark. Using 7.1 analog inputs.

I inadvertantly left the speakers to small when starting, possibly the first "speaker type error"? After the level error, I did power cycle the AS-EQ1 and restarted the Audessy software. That level error is scarry, it really drives the speaker!

I have an Outlaw 990 pre/pro using the 7.1 connectors, "The 990 does not offer any matrix processing or steering for the 7.1 Direct input; bass management, channel trim, and delays are all that I know of." I just double checked this on Outlaws site.

http://www.outlawaudio.com/support/990_analog_bm.html 

IIRC, settings are what I used previously.

I'll double check your steps over the weekend.

Thanks,
Joe


----------



## blekenbleu

*August shipment warnings?*

When SubEQ preorders are filled in August, will there be prior email shipment notifications/confirmations?
I would hate for mine to be delivered while away for a week or so..


----------



## cavchameleon

According to SVS, I contacted them on this, and they said that an email is sent out right before the unit ships (to also let you know that your card will be charged).

Ray


----------



## stevefish69

There is a nice review of the EQ1 over at AV-Forums in the UK by a well respected member that knows his stuff.

http://www.avforums.com/reviews/SVS-AS-EQ1-SubEQ-Review.html

He's basicaly confirmed what i've been hearing since the EQ1 arrived in the rack :yay2:


----------



## sgbcinti

I was wondering if there would be an advantage of re-running Audyssey on my AVR AFTER finishing all steps of the AS-EQ1 setup. Here's my thinking:

The initial run of the Receiver's (AVR) Audyssey corrects the speakers in the system while plugged into the AS-EQ1--which at this point is acting as a "perfect subwoofer simulator". This makes the AVR think it is connected to a perfectly flat (and properly in-phase with the mains, I assume) subwoofer. In the next step step of the EQ procedure, we use this info to (manually) set the proper level for the subwoofer and the center speaker and then match the rest of the speakers to this level. Then the AS-EQ1 equalizes the subwoofer (not the rest of the system), doing its best to make the actual sub match the "sub simulator". It does a great job, but naturally the actual subwoofer performance won't be perfect. At this point, the AVR Audyssey still thinks it is connected to the "sub simulator"--a flat fq response sub and one that matches the mains for phase.

If there are any interferences (phase, frequency, or intensity) between the ACTUAL subwoofer and the mains at this point we haven't addressed them. So if we re-run the AVR Audyssey routine now wouldn't it correct any remaining (or resulting) problems in the system? 

I don't have REW yet and I'm still trying to get my head around how all of this works. I'd appreciate your thoughts before I try this and maybe mess everyting up. Running 8 points of Ausyssey on a 12 speaker system is quite a commitment. 

The GOOD News: Yesterday I used the AS-EQ1 to set up two new subs. Phenomenal sound! I expected an improvement in bass but I'm amazed at how much this clears up the dialogue. For my theatre the EQ1 has been well worth the price.

Thanks for your help.

Denon 5308ci
KEF 107 Mains Centers and Surrounds 
Seaton Submersives
10.2 system (mains, center top and bottom, surround a and b, and back)


----------



## Jason_Nolan

I was reading the FAQ on most asked questions and it said that two subs should be colocated for best results. 

One of the reasons I purchased this was that I thought you could time align two different subwoofers in two different locations?

This isn't the case?

Thanks,

Jason


----------



## Doug McBride

Jason_Nolan said:


> I was reading the FAQ on most asked questions and it said that two subs should be co-located for best results.
> 
> One of the reasons I purchased this was that I thought you could time align two different subwoofers in two different locations?
> 
> This isn't the case?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jason


Jason - the AS-EQ1 can handle multiple subs - even more than two - just fine. In the case of more than two subs (which is what the FAQ is addressing I believe you are referring to) we are just listing the placement options for you in case you are not familiar with your options. Notice there is also a qualifier in the FAQ which is multiple subs on a "single channel" which would be the case if you have more than two subs.

In any case, the AS-EQ1 treats each of its channels as a separate source of bass and adjusts accordingly, even if there is more than one sub on that channel. We just want to make sure you don't inadvertently place those multiple subs in sub-optimal (no pun intended) locations.

Cheers,

Doug


Text of FAQ:

Question 5: Can the SVS AS-EQ1 handle more than two subwoofers?

Answer: Yes it can. There are two discrete subwoofer outputs on the SVS AS-EQ1. Either or both of
those can be attached to one or more subwoofers and the resulting subwoofer “system” is treated as a
single source of bass during calibration. Of course attention should be paid to good basic setup to avoid
more correction by the AS-EQ1 than necessary. For example, the best way to group multiple subs on a
single channel is via co-location (two subs side by side or on top of each other) which often yields a
smoother in-room (pre-correction) frequency response than separated subs. Stacked subs are not
always aesthetically acceptable, so we recommend auditioning dual subs along adjacent or common
walls. Due to the flexibility of the SVS AS-EQ1’s Audyssey software (SubEQ ™) it is very easy and
quick to perform placement trials before final calibration. The SubEQ graphical user interface shows either combined
“dual” sub or individual before and after corrections to allow you to avoid inherently
poor grouping of subwoofers in your listening environment.


AS-EQ1 FAQs:

http://svsound.com/as-eq1/as-eq1_subeq_faq.pdf


----------



## Jason_Nolan

Sorry, I didn't read slow enough to see that it was saying on one channel.

Thank you for the reply.

Now I'm still glad I ordered one for August.

I filled out SVS's questionare afterward. There was one thing I missed in my recommendations. I would like if SVS were to throw in one free 1 meter sub cable that way you can run this thing and not need to go out and buy another sub cable for the connect from the AVR to the AS-EQ1.

Any hopes on making this standard for my August purchase? Not a bad request for a 700 dollar bass processor...

Thanks

Jason


----------



## cavchameleon

Jason,

As far as I know, it does come with the cable you mention. See this review here:

http://www.avforums.com/forums/subwoofers/993424-svs-eq1-subwoofer-eq-end-user-review.html

From that thread:

What's in the box?

The AS-EQ1 arrived well packed with the main white cardboard packaging fitting snugly inside a standard brown cardboard shipping box. Opening up the box reveals the various components, while the AS-EQ1 itself is bagged and well protected at either end by dense packing foam, some of the other components such as the cables and DVD case are left to 'rattle' around in the box. I can't see this leading to any damage to the components during transit but it would have been nice if the entire contents were more secure.






The image above shows the full contents: Manual/Software DVD, Measurement Microphone, 3 metre USB cable, power supply, pass-through cable, including rubber feet for shelf mounting and 'ears' for rack mounting, plus the optional SVS branded RCA interconnect. Below you can see a closer view of the interconnects on a pre-production model without the relevant warning and certification labels.


Ray


OOPS just read it more carefully: "optional SVS branded cable, so maybe not...


----------



## Jason_Nolan

Just a wish...


----------



## bpape

For sheer output and ease of EQ, co-locating is great. For smoothest non-eq'd response and to deal with room mode issues, try one dead center front and back or side and side.

Bryan


----------



## Jason_Nolan

I guess I better order some cables...

Bryan,

It will be a while yet, but I'll definitely be consulting you in the next few months. Well, maybe anyway if this house deal goes through. I'm going to be very interested in some acoustic treatment and placement and it sounds like you're the man.

Jason


----------



## bpape

Whenever you're ready, give me a shout Jason. I'll be happy to help.

Bryan


----------



## sub_crazy

I don't know if this question has been answered already but I did not come across it.

I am on the pre-order list for a AS-EQ1. I am using DIY sealed subs in my system which I EQ down low for extended response with a SMS-1. I know that the AS-EQ1 will not give me the boost down low that I need but what else can I use to add that boost before the AS-EQ1 does it's thing?

I know that a LT Circuit could do this but I have no idea of how to implement or put together one of those. I also read about a Third-Order sealed system using capacitors to lower the response which is explained by ACI here: http://www.madisound.com/catalog/PDF/SV12Specs.pdf

I don't want to use the SMS-1 to add boost down low then the AS-EQ1 to EQ everything as that would be one of an expensive option.

Right now I get extension right about the high 20's and add about a 6db boost at 22hz and it works really well.

I really don't have the room for a new ported enclosure as space is an issue so that is out.

I don't really need response down to 10hz but around 18hz would be nice and I have the drivers (Mal-X) and power QSC PLX 2502, 3002 and 3402 to get there......and no, I don't use all those amps at once.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Check out the Marchand Bassis. It's basically a Linkwitz Transform but with the ability to easily vary the parameters. Wonderful thing for anyone into DIY sealed subs.


----------



## sub_crazy

Jack Gilvey said:


> Check out the Marchand Bassis. It's basically a Linkwitz Transform but with the ability to easily vary the parameters. Wonderful thing for anyone into DIY sealed subs.


I thought about the Bassis but was wondering how hard it was to use. Also with the $700 for the AS-EQ1 + $400 for the Bassis I would be looking at $1,100 just to EQ my subs which is not desirable to say the least. 

I was hoping for a more cost effective approach and may have to just read up about making my own LT. I did go to http://www.linkwitzlab.com/ and they have some info there but electronic circuits are like French to me.

Is there anyplace were you could send your subs response and pay to have them make a LT for you?

I really doubt I will spend the $400 for the Bassis, I would probably only consider buying a used one if the price is right but there are none available.

The more I think about it I may be better off just keeping my SMS-1 even though I really want the AS-EQ1:crying:

Thanks for the reply.


----------



## clausdk

Considering the AS-EQ1 heavily. Just finished building a beast of a DIY sub which delivers in spades. However using the Behringer 1124 DSP I still have this problem:










Three measurements, one in the sweet spot and then one on either side of that in the same sofa!

Will the AS EQ1 help this problem?


----------



## bpape

Hate to say but EQ isn't going to fix that problem. That's purely positional based on the width dimension of the room. 

Bryan


----------



## brucek

clausdk said:


> However using the Behringer 1124 DSP I still have this problem:
> 
> Three measurements, one in the sweet spot and then one on either side of that in the same sofa!


You have that problem because you didn't take three measurements with REW and then press the Average button to get a new averaged response that you apply your filters to. That set of BFD filters wouldn't result in a 'sweet spot', but rather offer the best response available over the couch area. With REW you can take up to eight measurements and then create a new average response from those eight. REW will then recommend its filters based on the average response.

Often, people use a set of 'sweet spot' filters and a set of 'average' filters, depending on the audience present.

brucek


----------



## bpape

True, but it's still not going to fix that problem. One seat has a peak, one has a dip, one is essentially flat. You CAN'T EQ that. Best you can do is leave it alone. Now, at places other than 40Hz, some look like you could get decent improvement. 

At 40, you're stuck unless you can treat the room with something that will deal with something that low

OR

You can potentially play with sub positioning and you get lucky enough to introduce complimentary responses at those 3 seats that will help to cancel all of the issues. Sometimes you can do this via introduction of tangential and/or oblique modes.

Bryan


----------



## clausdk

Thanks for all the input. Will try using REW with the avg response as mentioned and see what it recommends.

The response measured in the three spots is within 2 meters...pretty amazing peak and dip so close to eachother. Although I have the dip/peak problem the bass on the entire couch is still very good.

Was originally set on building 2 maelstrom x 18" subs, but finishing one now and seeing it in action only reason for building the 2nd would be smoother response, as output right now is outstanding and absolutely beyond what I imagined.

I'm still tempted on the EQ1 as alot of people seem to praise it.


----------



## jpk

Doug McBride said:


> Joe - I have not seen this particular error, but I have seen errors indicating the background noise was too great for it to get a good reading (and it was pretty sensitive - lawn mower about 100 feet away through closed windows).
> 
> I'd suggest trying a few things to see if the issue won't go away:
> 
> 1. Remove power from the unit (unplug) for a minute then re-power.
> 2. Do a quick 3 measurement cal and permanently save the results to the AS-EQ1.
> 3. Make sure your microphone connection is clean and tight into the AS-EQ1, as well as checking the physical integrity of the mic itself.
> 4. Make sure you are using known and verified good interconnects between the AS-EQ1 and your receiver.
> 5. De-install, then re-install SubEQ.
> 
> Steps 1, 2 and 5 are intended to reset and get to a known good state with the device and software. Step 3 and 4 are making sure connections and hardware are sound.
> 
> Sorry if these seems a little "shotgun-y", but we've not seen this before. Let us know how it turns out and if these steps do not rectify, we'll take it to Audyssey.
> 
> Edit: I just assumed you went through the Level Match process OK, but you know what happens when you assume... Did you, and how did that work out? Are you using the Multi-Channel analog inputs for the Sat? Any digital processing on that input disabled (usually isn't any but I had to ask)?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Doug


Hi Doug,
I went through your directions and re-did everything. The only exception being I uninstalled the software with MS uninstall, to later see a SVS/Audyssey uninstall routine on the setup CD? I don’t think this will cause any problems.
Level Match went OK w/ LF, the same speaker/satellite error as before? 
Level match went OK w/Center, did 3 position cal. SVS/Audyssey recommended a 140 Hz crossover? (Center Specs: Frequency response: 46-20kHz ± 3db anechoic, 60-20kHz ± 1.75db) I’m keeping it at 80 unless I hear otherwise? I did save this cal.
I then tried the RF speaker, level check OK and started a 6 position cal, and cancelled, (phone rang), went to listen and WOW! Bass circuit volume is wide open, nothing but bass! I redid and saved and all is fine. 
Strange the bass got ramped up to full volume with cancelled calibration? 
Since only the left is causing sub/sat error problems, I must have something weird going on here?
Otherwise all seems well again!

Thanks Doug,
Joe


----------



## jpk

Phase Question(s)
I went to play a Chesky DVD-A sampler/setup disk and for some reason I let it go through the setup part. All seemed well until I got to the sub phase test. Lo and behold the subs were out of phase? I reversed the phase via a front panel switch on the amps and the volume maximized. I redid a 9 position cal and things are sounding even better.:bigsmile: I'm a bit surprised there's a phase inversion somewhere in the system? How could this get missed in the setup?:duh:
Joe


----------



## GregBe

I love the fact that this thing eq's multiple subs for multiple seats seperately. I am bulding my dedicated home theater, and will be adding multple PB10 to my one lonely one sitting in the corner right now.


----------



## Roger Dressler

GregBe said:


> I love the fact that this thing eq's multiple subs for multiple seats seperately.


 I think you're overstating the case a bit. It first sets the level and delay for each subwoofer and then creates a room correction solution for both subwoofers combined (not individually). 

The room correction is indeed determined by looking at the responses in several seats. But that is not the same as applying individual EQ to each seat separately. It's one EQ curve that is a best compromise for all the seats.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Roger Dressler said:


> The room correction is indeed determined by looking at the responses in several seats. But that is not the same as applying individual EQ to each seat separately.


 How would you apply EQ to a seat?! More seriously, how would you apply EQ to a speaker that is individual for each seat?



> It's one EQ curve that is a best compromise for all the seats.


Yup.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Kal Rubinson said:


> How would you apply EQ to a seat?! More seriously, how would you apply EQ to a speaker that is individual for each seat?


 Exactly. Hence the problem with the original statement.


----------



## BigPines

Roger Dressler said:


> It's one EQ curve that is a best compromise for all the seats.


Actually, if you are EQing two discrete subs with this unit, it is *two* EQ curves best compromised for all seats. :bigsmile:

Mike


----------



## cavchameleon

BigPines said:


> Actually, if you are EQing two discrete subs with this unit, it is *two* EQ curves best compromised for all seats. :bigsmile:
> 
> Mike


Yep! But, which sounds better: this option or EQing both together? I wonder which will give the smoothest/flattest response. This would be a fun test to try (a bit time consuming if using all 32 positions). Has anyone with this unit tried a comparison test?

Ray


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Kal Rubinson said:


> How would you apply EQ to a seat?! More seriously, how would you apply EQ to a speaker that is individual for each seat?
> 
> Yup.





BigPines said:


> Actually, if you are EQing two discrete subs with this unit, it is *two* EQ curves best compromised for all seats. :bigsmile:
> 
> Mike


Even if you are EQing for one sub, the correction curve is the best compromise for all seats.


----------



## Ayreonaut

If you use a symmetric arrangement to minimize seat-to-seat variation perhaps you should EQ them as one channel. This would preserve the cancellation of all odd order axial modes. (Welti)

But for randomly placed subs, who knows? I would be interested to see it too.


cavchameleon said:


> ...which sounds better: this option or EQing both together? I wonder which will give the smoothest/flattest response. This would be a fun test to try...


----------



## Roger Dressler

BigPines said:


> Actually, if you are EQing two discrete subs with this unit, it is *two* EQ curves best compromised for all seats.


 You may well be right. Is that explained by Audyssey somewhere? All I found was >>The Sub Equalizer is the first component that enables the proper integration of two subwoofers in any home theater receiver. It automatically sets the level and delay for each subwoofer and then creates a room correction solution for both subwoofers combined.<< at their Sub EQ page. If there are more details on how it creates individual EQ curves for each of the two sub outputs, I'm keen to read about it.


----------



## JimP

Ed Mullen said:


> All of your speakers are sealed with a 60 Hz extension rating. So use a 2nd order high pass, a 4th order low pass, and a crossover frequency of 60 Hz.



Is this the sme as having a 12 db per octave slope on the high pass and a 24 db per octave low pass?


----------



## cavchameleon

Roger Dressler said:


> You may well be right. Is that explained by Audyssey somewhere? All I found was >>The Sub Equalizer is the first component that enables the proper integration of two subwoofers in any home theater receiver. It automatically sets the level and delay for each subwoofer and then creates a room correction solution for both subwoofers combined.<< at their Sub EQ page. If there are more details on how it creates individual EQ curves for each of the two sub outputs, I'm keen to read about it.


Roger,

You can read more info on the SVS site:

http://www.svsound.com/products-parts-subeq.cfm

You can also download their manual from this link. I couldn't attach the file here since it exceeded the file size. It has a lot of info on setup and explains the EQ process. Maybe Ed can cue in here and fill you in with more info. In the Audyssey thread at AVSforum, Chris from Audyssey regularly participates and can answer fully. Kal also visits this thread and the Shack Audyssey thread and has a lot of experience with Audyssey products and has done a review on this unit (I'm waiting Oct issue of Stereophile fore his full review). I find his reviews, experience, and comments very enlightening.

Ray


----------



## bpape

That was my understanding. It sets distance and phase and level for each sub individually to get them 'in sync' and then does one eq for both subs combined for the best average response for all the seating locations.

Bryan


----------



## cavchameleon

Yes, and it has the capability to do the same independently for both subs (great if you have 'two' different systems but not sure it would be better than the above). IMO I think it's better to set the final curves with both together to create the smoothest response.

Ray


----------



## Roger Dressler

cavchameleon said:


> Roger,
> 
> You can read more info on the SVS site:
> 
> http://www.svsound.com/products-parts-subeq.cfm
> 
> You can also download their manual from this link. I couldn't attach the file here since it exceeded the file size. It has a lot of info on setup and explains the EQ process. Maybe Ed can cue in here and fill you in with more info. In the Audyssey thread at AVSforum, Chris from Audyssey regularly participates and can answer fully. Kal also visits this thread and the Shack Audyssey thread and has a lot of experience with Audyssey products and has done a review on this unit (I'm waiting Oct issue of Stereophile fore his full review). I find his reviews, experience, and comments very enlightening.


 I appreciate the reply. 

Looking at the SVS owner's manual, it does expand upon the Audyssey explanation: 



> The AS-EQ1 will treat dual subwoofers as follows:
> 
> One IN to two OUT represents dual combined subwoofers. The AS-EQ1 will “ping” Subwoofer A, ping Subwoofer B, then ping Both Subwoofers. It EQs both subwoofers independently, but will also EQ the combined response and tweak both subwoofers as needed.
> 
> Dual discrete IN to dual discrete OUT represents “stereo bass” (two separate sources of bass). Alternatively, it can be used to connect two separate systems in the same room if you have that configuration. The AS-EQ1 will ping Subwoofer A, ping Subwoofer B, EQ Subwoofer A, then EQ Subwoofer B. It will not ping or EQ the combined A+ B.


So it looks like both modes apply individual EQ to each sub (even though the combined mode applies another EQ pass based on the tandem results). Funny that Audysey info neglects to make the same claim for their unit. Or maybe I didn't dig deep enough. 

Thanks all.

ETA: Per Audyssey, the One IN to two Out mode is not actually EQing each sun=b separately. He writes: >>You can treat each sub separately with an individual filter and then listen to them together. However, in our experiments we found that much better results are obtained if you first time and level align the subs and then ping them as "one" to create a single filter for the sum. So that configuration is the default setting in the software.<< So the only difference in the feeds is time/level, while the EQ is the same for both. Glad that's cleared up.


----------



## cavchameleon

I think the Audyssey site mentions both the SVS unit and their own unit (which is more of a pro-install unit) and focuses more on their own. 

Ray


----------



## Patrick Nevin

It has been a while since my last post. I did add the auralex atom-12 bass trap system which really didn't help but it made my room more dead in sound. I do have an interesting question. The software tells us to have the sub trim level at but would it be better to have it set at 25% of the sub trim level?

Thanks
Patrick


----------



## Jason_Nolan

How much more mid August does it have to be before the second round ships?


----------



## bbtnt

I saw in another forum where someone said that SVS was saying the as-eq1 would ship around 8/21.


----------



## Timoxx4

I got mine yesterday here in Australia :bigsmile: Just installed it today.


----------



## cavchameleon

Timoxx4 said:


> I got mine yesterday here in Australia :bigsmile: Just installed it today.


You're definitely much closer then we are... almost like dropping off a shipment one third the way here. How do you like it? We want some feed back.

I did contact SVS and they said that shipping out to customers here will happen on the 21st, so just around the corner.

Ray


----------



## Timoxx4

Yeah so far it seems pretty good. I have only run it the once with 6 mic positions and sat back to enjoy.

It feels like the bass is tighter with a more pronounced thump or kick. It sounds basically the same as what i had before but a little more punchy and maybe slightly smoother.

I just skipped through the chronicles of Riddick on SD DVD to the good bits and watched a few hours of HDTV and gave a quick test with xbox 360 and the game splosion man.

One thing i did have to do was totally go back on what the EQ1 suggested for my level trim settings. Only for the calibration step did i adjust the trim of my center and sub amp so i could run the calibration. I set them back to where they where once the job was done as the settings the EQ1 told me to use where way too quiet for me. So i re-did all the level trims with my spl meter and boosted the bass to my tastes and it’s a lot better.

I would post the graphs but they are on my laptop out in my HT. Next time i am out there i will get them. Not that they tell the whole story anyway but can be interesting to see none the less.

So with my limited testing of the unit i can safely say it HAS improved things over my attempts with REW and a Behringer Ultra Curve Pro DEQ2496. Mostly just the tighter, punchier aspect of the bass is most apparent over anything else. Its a little harder to tell if there is any other difference unless i had my DEQ2496 still setup and could directly A and B the two to compare. But it hasn't done any undesirable things so that's good. I was wondering before i got it, if it might have done something worse than my previous setup but thankfully its only done good :bigsmile:

Will post graphs soon.


----------



## Timoxx4

Ok here are my graphs.



















It appears to have rolled of my low end a little early in the after result but then again this is just an average result over all 6 mic positions so i probably actually still have sub 20Hz in some seats.

This is my previous setup before and after with REW.



















This last one has my mains on too.


----------



## JimP

Tim,

Run REW with EQ1. 

The after graphs with EQ1 are mathematically calculated and not true readings.


----------



## Roger Dressler

I'd also be curious to see the direct electrical response of the EQ1 as measured with REW to get some idea of how much "detail" or resolution is being applied by the filters.


----------



## Timoxx4

Ok here they are. Oh and i just remembered i have moved my couch forward in the room a little since my first initial REW measurement with my old setup and DEQ2496. That was over a year ago and i didn't run REW again after moving the couch as it sounded fine so the before EQ1 graphs above are going to be slightly different.

Sweet spot after EQ1










Measured the same 6 spots as i did with EQ1 to get this average in REW.










Same as above but with 1/3 octave smoothing to try and match the EQ1 after graph.










Not bad :bigsmile:.


----------



## Thomasdk1405

Hi ! I'm now the happy owner of both the AS-EQ1 and the PC Ultra. Something puzzles me - that's why I now turn here. According to manual - all speakers needs to be matched = 75 db or close using the Sat out (Left/center) - but I'm suppose to use this for all speakers. Here comes the real problem. 
What speaker should I use for the measurements ?
In my setup I have the sub right next to the front right speaker (to the far right - in the corner of the room). So when I use the Left speaker for the SAT out - I have the largest distance between the Left speaker and the sub. When I measure here - I get 6.4 meters in distance and one type of graph. Using the center will give me 6.3 meters - and a poor graph (cutting the low end too guick) - now here comes the part that puzzles me - if I then use the right speaker for the SAT out - I get 3.10 meters (very close to the actual distance) - very close to ruler flat graph and rolls off the low end late !!??
So what am I fishing after here - what was SVS's intensions with the Left/center thing - only examples or ? 
If had the sub to the far left - to the left of the left speaker - I would perhaps get the same results as the right speaker / right corner sub measurement.
And btw - I measure the exact same spots on all 3 (left, center and right speaker).

But besides this - this is one great product !!
/Thomas
Edit:
Just had another go with the right speaker - and now I got 6.30 meters - same - and not the 3.10 meters. But still - got the best graph here off all my tries in the 20 hz mode. Still would like to know if it does matter - or the left/center thing just are examples.


----------



## counsil

Has anyone received an AS-EQ1 lately? Isn't there supposed to be another batch shipping out to customers soon? I would like to see some more indepth impressions of this EQ.


----------



## cavchameleon

counsil said:


> Has anyone received an AS-EQ1 lately? Isn't there supposed to be another batch shipping out to customers soon? I would like to see some more indepth impressions of this EQ.


Jack from SVS said that they will be shipping on 8/21 - so end of next week. So, a lot should have this in their hands the following week.

Ray


----------



## cavchameleon

Thomasdk1405 said:


> Hi ! I'm now the happy owner of both the AS-EQ1 and the PC Ultra. Something puzzles me - that's why I now turn here. According to manual - all speakers needs to be matched = 75 db or close using the Sat out (Left/center) - but I'm suppose to use this for all speakers. Here comes the real problem.
> What speaker should I use for the measurements ?
> In my setup I have the sub right next to the front right speaker (to the far right - in the corner of the room). So when I use the Left speaker for the SAT out - I have the largest distance between the Left speaker and the sub. When I measure here - I get 6.4 meters in distance and one type of graph. Using the center will give me 6.3 meters - and a poor graph (cutting the low end too guick) - now here comes the part that puzzles me - if I then use the right speaker for the SAT out - I get 3.10 meters (very close to the actual distance) - very close to ruler flat graph and rolls off the low end late !!??
> So what am I fishing after here - what was SVS's intensions with the Left/center thing - only examples or ?
> If had the sub to the far left - to the left of the left speaker - I would perhaps get the same results as the right speaker / right corner sub measurement.
> And btw - I measure the exact same spots on all 3 (left, center and right speaker).
> 
> But besides this - this is one great product !!
> /Thomas
> Edit:
> Just had another go with the right speaker - and now I got 6.30 meters - same - and not the 3.10 meters. But still - got the best graph here off all my tries in the 20 hz mode. Still would like to know if it does matter - or the left/center thing just are examples.



Thomas,

The Center/SAT out is only for level matching of your mains to the sub (to get them as close to the 75db range as possible) before running the actual EQ portion of the AS-EQ1. It's done after you run the auto-cal portion of your AVR (connected to the AS-EQ1 as described in the manual). When you level match, you can do just one speaker and 'correct' the other speakers manually for level matching or you can do all of the speakers (connecting the Center/Sat connection to each speaker, line-in, individually and level match each one with the SVS unit). After you are done with the level matching part, you then run the subwoofer(s) eq portion, this is where you will put the 1st mic position in your primary LP and that is the position that will calculate the correct distances for the sub (which you will then input in the BM portion of your AVR).

Hope that helps.
Ray


----------



## counsil

cavchameleon said:


> Thomas,
> 
> The Center/SAT out is only for level matching of your mains to the sub (to get them as close to the 75db range as possible) before running the actual EQ portion of the AS-EQ1. It's done after you run the auto-cal portion of your AVR (connected to the AS-EQ1 as described in the manual). When you level match, you can do just one speaker and 'correct' the other speakers manually for level matching or you can do all of the speakers (connecting the Center/Sat connection to each speaker, line-in, individually and level match each one with the SVS unit). After you are done with the level matching part, you then run the subwoofer(s) eq portion, this is where you will put the 1st mic position in your primary LP and that is the position that will calculate the correct distances for the sub (which you will then input in the BM portion of your AVR).
> 
> Hope that helps.
> Ray


What is the likelihood that you would need to adjust the trim level of the center (and all the other satellites for that matter) after just running MultEQ XT on your AVR (during Auto EQ Assist)? If there were differences, what would most likely be the cause? Different 1st measurement position? Differences in mics? Something else?


----------



## Jason_Nolan

I would like to know when SVS is going to ship, also. It would be nice to receive updates once you've given them your credit card number.

Also, I've tried going to their website for two days and I get a message that "the URL doesn't exist for that address."

Are they still in business?


----------



## counsil

Jason_Nolan said:


> I would like to know when SVS is going to ship, also. It would be nice to receive updates once you've given them your credit card number.
> 
> Also, I've tried going to their website for two days and I get a message that "the URL doesn't exist for that address."
> 
> Are they still in business?


They are definitely still in business. I have had several email conversations with Ed just today.

I am getting the website errors as well. What do they say?... "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". I am sure they are looking into other options as far as their website is concerned!


----------



## cavchameleon

counsil said:


> What is the likelihood that you would need to adjust the trim level of the center (and all the other satellites for that matter) after just running MultEQ XT on your AVR (during Auto EQ Assist)? If there were differences, what would most likely be the cause? Different 1st measurement position? Differences in mics? Something else?


Running the MultEQ XT on your AVR gets all the filters and distances to the LP correct for the sats, but the SVS unit does not know the 'level's set by the AVR (it simply ping's back a 'perfect' subwoofer so that the AVR thinks that no correction is needed). The leveling step is used to match the levels to the subwoofer, using the same mic (from the AS-EQ1) for sat's and sub (no distance for the sats, just levels). Then the step to set the filters and figuring the distance is done afterwards for the sub(s).

Ray


----------



## cavchameleon

Jason_Nolan said:


> I would like to know when SVS is going to ship, also. It would be nice to receive updates once you've given them your credit card number.
> 
> Also, I've tried going to their website for two days and I get a message that "the URL doesn't exist for that address."
> 
> Are they still in business?


Yep, they are still in business. They had a malware issue on their website that was being corrected (contacted Jeff from SVS on this issue and he confirmed they were working on it).

SVS will charge your card the day it ship (which is when they will give you and update via email) which is supposed to happen on or near 8/21/09 (also confirmed by Jeff at SVS). If you email them, they will contact you and answer your questions fairly quickly - they always respond to my same day or within 24 hours).

Ray


----------



## Ron Stimpson

Yes, of course we're still in business, though our host for the site is about to be summarily sacked.

It's just a matter of being a nice-big popular brand on the web I’m afraid. Hard to say even if we were targeted directly but suffice it to say keeping it running and being responsive is what we are.

Sorry we’ve been a bit distracted tracking down the culprit. More AS-EQ1’s are finally due in this week and will fill all back orders very rapidly once thru final QC. I must warn folks that soon as they start shipping again we’re officially WELL out of pre-order phase and will bump price to $749. Still under MSRP of $799 thanks to the recession. Quantities are still limited, so here’s your not so confidential warning.

Still more AS-EQ1’s are in production now and SVS will be back with the fabricator next month to expedite those out the door for holiday sales.

So with any luck at all shipping notices will be leaving soon, and those that have been on the fence will need to order up quick to get the old $699 price. 

From the FWIW files, yet another mag (since Stereophile just published) will hit the streets with what we hope to be another very positive review. It’s not for everyone but so far most agree it’s the best subwoofer EQ yet done. Just looking at sales amongst folks here, and around the world I’d say the public agree.

Thanks for your patience with the site. 

Ron Stimpson
President, SVS
Director, Product and Marketing


----------



## cavchameleon

counsil said:


> They are definitely still in business. I have had several email conversations with Ed just today.
> 
> I am getting the website errors as well. What do they say?... "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". I am sure they are looking into other options as far as their website is concerned!


Looks like counsil beat me to it. Should have read all the responses first before answering...
:duh:

Ray


----------



## Jason_Nolan

Hopefully the website is back up again soon. I need to order cables, too.

I did have a question on my subs. I have an LFE on the two front BP3000TL Definitive speakers plus I have a Definitive Trinity and JL F113.

I was thinking about running two cables out of a Y to the front two Definitive 3000's up front of the room and then running a Y out to the JL and Trinity in the back. I was thinking of measure these so the front R-L subs would be equidistant to the center listening seat and the back to subs, of course located closer to the listener, but also equidistant to the center position. Would this yeild favorable results or should I only use my two subs? I would like to utilize all of them hopefully, but whatever sounds best. 

Anyone have any opinions?

Of course this will dictate how many sub cables I need to order. 

One other question is I need to run my Sub cables under my floor through my crawl space. Will SVS sub cables be ok for this kind of run?


----------



## counsil

cavchameleon said:


> Running the MultEQ XT on your AVR gets all the filters and distances to the LP correct for the sats, but the SVS unit does not know the 'level's set by the AVR (it simply ping's back a 'perfect' subwoofer so that the AVR thinks that no correction is needed). The leveling step is used to match the levels to the subwoofer, using the same mic (from the AS-EQ1) for sat's and sub (no distance for the sats, just levels). Then the step to set the filters and figuring the distance is done afterwards for the sub(s).
> 
> Ray


I guess it really depends on what version of MultEQ XT you have, but the latest versions (with Dynamic EQ for example) calibrate your AVR where reference is at 0 MV. Therefore, when you move on to calibrate your AS-EQ1, the satellite you use to level match against should already read 75 dB... spot on. Am I missing something fundamental here???


----------



## Jason_Nolan

To clear that last comment up a little, sorry, the front two speakers will be up front and on the left and right sides of the room probably about 2-3 feet from the front wall. The seating position will be about 66-70% of the way back to the room, with the JL and Trinity subs located around the back corners of the room, right side and left side opposite of each other.


----------



## counsil

Jason_Nolan said:


> Hopefully the website is back up again soon. I need to order cables, too.
> 
> I did have a question on my subs. I have an LFE on the two front BP3000TL Definitive speakers plus I have a Definitive Trinity and JL F113.
> 
> I was thinking about running two cables out of a Y to the front two Definitive 3000's up front of the room and then running a Y out to the JL and Trinity in the back. I was thinking of measure these so the front R-L subs would be equidistant to the center listening seat and the back to subs, of course located closer to the listener, but also equidistant to the center position. Would this yeild favorable results or should I only use my two subs? I would like to utilize all of them hopefully, but whatever sounds best.
> 
> Anyone have any opinions?
> 
> Of course this will dictate how many sub cables I need to order.
> 
> One other question is I need to run my Sub cables under my floor through my crawl space. Will SVS sub cables be ok for this kind of run?


I have Def Tech BP7002s for mains that have LFE connections as well. I do not recommend using these. Just use speaker wire. There have been several discussions regarding this on *other* forums. There is no good reason that I have ever read to use this connections.

I would definitely use an AS-EQ1 with your Trinity and F113.

BTW, how do you like the Trinity? Compare it to the F113 and any other sub you have owned.


----------



## counsil

Also, regarding the sub cables, SVS or Blue Jeans cables will work just fine. I use sub cables from monoprice. From what I have read, all of them are basically the same, and work just as well.


----------



## counsil

Jason_Nolan said:


> To clear that last comment up a little, sorry, the front two speakers will be up front and on the left and right sides of the room probably about 2-3 feet from the front wall. The seating position will be about 66-70% of the way back to the room, with the JL and Trinity subs located around the back corners of the room, right side and left side opposite of each other.


I recommend using regular speaker wire with your Def Techs and putting your subs up front. They will more than likely integrate better with your mains. Just my $.02.

Cross all your speakers over at 80Hz. I know, it seems like a waste to set the Def Techs to small. You can alway cross them over at 40Hz or 60Hz to see how that sounds. I prefer 40Hz and 80Hz (in no particular order).


----------



## Jason_Nolan

Counsil, 

I do have a good reason for doing this, atleast in my head. 

One they're 18" subwoofers. Although they don't play as low as some DIY, they'll easily hit 20hz. 
Two, they're another two subwoofers to fill in room resonant modes and add more dynamics. This may work against me, I'm not sure.
Three, I wouldn't want to run these as lower than it's correcting the Trinity and the Fathom without also running these through the AS-EQ1 for correction. I feel this would only add problems and basically undo whatever greatness the AS-EQ1 is capable of.

I do really hate to bypass them, but I guess I'll have to do a trial and error once the AS-eq1 comes and I close on my house. Should happen at about the same time or close anyway.

I'd love to give you a comparison on the Trinity and the Fathom, but I cant because my fathom is being broke in by my brother while I wait to close on my house. I will say they both are awesome. The trinity plays low and shakes the place I'm currently staying in. It sounds really great for movies and pretty good for music. At my brothers the fathom dissapointed me right out of the box. I've been back a month later though and it's starting to sound awesome, I never believed in break in, but I guess that stiff driver did actually benefit from it. It sounds great at my brothers, maybe even better than my Trinity, but his room has great bass acoustics unlike the room I'm currently using which my trinity sits in. This room is truely horrible, so what the Trinity manages to accomplish in it is also amazing. Only time will tell once I get them in the same room. Whichever one wins I'll eventually sellf the other and pair them up, or possibly more down the line.

My goal was to get a pair of F113's with the new Revel Salon2's. I recently heard this combination and I've never heard sound so good. Pretty amazing. Unfortunately that will be way down the road.

Thanks for your 2 cents. Not to devalue your opinion, because that's not the case, but I would love to hear from Ed at SVS or anyone else with experience or knowledge of my previous set up question. I fear that you're right, counsil, but I really don't want to believe it...


----------



## Jason_Nolan

I'm using a Denon 4308CI with Audessy MultEQ.

I also asked about the subwoofer cables due to the fact that they would be under my house in a crawl space exposed to some elemants, ie possible moisture and some temperature changes.


----------



## counsil

Jason_Nolan said:


> Counsil,
> 
> I do have a good reason for doing this, atleast in my head.
> 
> One they're 18" subwoofers. Although they don't play as low as some DIY, they'll easily hit 20hz.
> Two, they're another two subwoofers to fill in room resonant modes and add more dynamics. This may work against me, I'm not sure.
> Three, I wouldn't want to run these as lower than it's correcting the Trinity and the Fathom without also running these through the AS-EQ1 for correction. I feel this would only add problems and basically undo whatever greatness the AS-EQ1 is capable of.
> 
> I do really hate to bypass them, but I guess I'll have to do a trial and error once the AS-eq1 comes and I close on my house. Should happen at about the same time or close anyway.
> 
> I'd love to give you a comparison on the Trinity and the Fathom, but I cant because my fathom is being broke in by my brother while I wait to close on my house. I will say they both are awesome. The trinity plays low and shakes the place I'm currently staying in. It sounds really great for movies and pretty good for music. At my brothers the fathom dissapointed me right out of the box. I've been back a month later though and it's starting to sound awesome, I never believed in break in, but I guess that stiff driver did actually benefit from it. It sounds great at my brothers, maybe even better than my Trinity, but his room has great bass acoustics unlike the room I'm currently using which my trinity sits in. This room is truely horrible, so what the Trinity manages to accomplish in it is also amazing. Only time will tell once I get them in the same room. Whichever one wins I'll eventually sellf the other and pair them up, or possibly more down the line.
> 
> My goal was to get a pair of F113's with the new Revel Salon2's. I recently heard this combination and I've never heard sound so good. Pretty amazing. Unfortunately that will be way down the road.
> 
> Thanks for your 2 cents. Not to devalue your opinion, because that's not the case, but I would love to hear from Ed at SVS or anyone else with experience or knowledge of my previous set up question. I fear that you're right, counsil, but I really don't want to believe it...


I completely understand where you are coming from. If I had a nickel for everytime I read about a Def Tech owner not wanting to run their powered towers as *small*... I'd probably have a $100.00 by now. No joking. I seriously doubt that you will find more a handful of Def Tech owners out there that will agree with you. This said, there is absolutely nothing anyone can say to ever change their mind.

I can't wait to read about your thoughts once you get your setup together (including the AS-EQ1).


----------



## counsil

Jason_Nolan said:


> I'm using a Denon 4308CI with Audessy MultEQ.
> 
> I also asked about the subwoofer cables due to the fact that they would be under my house in a crawl space exposed to some elemants, ie possible moisture and some temperature changes.


Good sub cables are coaxial. They hold up great, and are resistent to moisture, etc. Just think about it... the cable company just buries coax cable a few inches under the ground.


----------



## Jason_Nolan

Agreed. How would you terminate the cables though and what type of coaxial is the best? Rg6 is better or worse than_____? Sorry, don't know much about cable.

What tools are needed to do this and would getting tools, cables and ends be more expensive than just buying premade cables?


----------



## Jason_Nolan

counsil said:


> I completely understand where you are coming from. If I had a nickel for everytime I read about a Def Tech owner not wanting to run their powered towers as *small*... I'd probably have a $100.00 by now. No joking. I seriously doubt that you will find more a handful of Def Tech owners out there that will agree with you. This said, there is absolutely nothing anyone can say to ever change their mind.
> 
> I can't wait to read about your thoughts once you get your setup together (including the AS-EQ1).


Yeah, it's understandable. I wish I had bought the unpowered speakers a lot of time just for that reason. On the other hand, you always read that more subs in a room is better to excite room modes, yet when you set them up, they'll play aweful together at times if not done properly, and most, me included, are not experts.

We'll see, you're most likely right.


----------



## cavchameleon

counsil said:


> I guess it really depends on what version of MultEQ XT you have, but the latest versions (with Dynamic EQ for example) calibrate your AVR where reference is at 0 MV. Therefore, when you move on to calibrate your AS-EQ1, the satellite you use to level match against should already read 75 dB... spot on. Am I missing something fundamental here???


That's correct, at 0 MV it should already be at 75db and you will most likely not have to adjust (unless there is a + 1 or 2 db difference in the mic. The main thing is to calibrate the subs to the same level as the mains before running the whole sub setup.

Ray


----------



## cavchameleon

Jason_Nolan,

You may want to call Ed at SVS with your issue as there may be other steps needed to take into account the acoustic coupling that will occur if using all 'four' subs. The SVS unit takes into account one sub on each output (so two subs) and not two subs on each output, although Ed did mention before that it can be done with great success. He may also suggest running the front two as small (as counsil suggests) with a lower crossover point. My speakers do not have a built in powered sub (specs are 27-20khz, but actual room response at -3db is 22) but a passive one and I run the crossover at 60hz. It seems high, but not really considering a 12db/octive roll-off, so there is still energy down to 30hz and give the speaker better dynamic range IMO (less strain).

Ray


----------



## counsil

Jason_Nolan said:


> Agreed. How would you terminate the cables though and what type of coaxial is the best? Rg6 is better or worse than_____? Sorry, don't know much about cable.
> 
> What tools are needed to do this and would getting tools, cables and ends be more expensive than just buying premade cables?


I use these from Monoprice. They are very high quality and dirt cheap. Be prepared to be surprised. I am sure SVS and Blue Jeans has something very similar...

High Quality RG6 Digital Audio 24K Gold-Plated Cable w/ Fancy Connector

Also, I use these instead of RCA Y cables. At $.68 a piece from Monoprice you can't beat the price; and they work just as good...

RCA Video Audio Splitter Adapter (RCA Female to 2 RCA Female)


----------



## counsil

cavchameleon said:


> That's correct, at 0 MV it should already be at 75db and you will most likely not have to adjust (unless there is a + 1 or 2 db difference in the mic. The main thing is to calibrate the subs to the same level as the mains before running the whole sub setup.
> 
> Ray


I figured that's what it must be. I have just read too many instances of people stating that their whole system is calibrated too soft after calibrating their AS-EQ1. Are the MultEQ XT mics that come with AVRs inferior to the mic that comes with the AS-EQ1?


----------



## Timoxx4

counsil said:


> I figured that's what it must be. I have just read too many instances of people stating that their whole system is calibrated too soft after calibrating their AS-EQ1. Are the MultEQ XT mics that come with AVRs inferior to the mic that comes with the AS-EQ1?


Not everyone has an AVR with MultEQ XT or any flavor of Auddyssey for that matter. So that might be one reason. 

Myself, i have a Yamaha 3800 and it has its own auto EQ system so could be completely different in the levels. I don't use it anyway so i completely skip that process and go straight to the EQ side of the AS-EQ1. Then once it has done its thing i go and reset all my level trims with an SPL meter. Job done :bigsmile: Or else yes, my levels would have been very soft indeed.


----------



## counsil

Timoxx4 said:


> Not everyone has an AVR with MultEQ XT or any flavor of Auddyssey for that matter. So that might be one reason.
> 
> Myself, i have a Yamaha 3800 and it has its own auto EQ system so could be completely different in the levels. I don't use it anyway so i completely skip that process and go straight to the EQ side of the AS-EQ1. Then once it has done its thing i go and reset all my level trims with an SPL meter. Job done :bigsmile: Or else yes, my levels would have been very soft indeed.


Did you happen to use an SPL meter to see what SubEQ showed as 75 dB was on your meter? I have read some posts where a RS SPL meter read as low as 67-69 dB. I can't remember if it was on this thread or on another thread/forum.


----------



## Roger Dressler

Jason,

How many rows/seats will be in the main listening/viewing area? Just curious how big the sweet spot needs to be.


----------



## Timoxx4

counsil said:


> Did you happen to use an SPL meter to see what SubEQ showed as 75 dB was on your meter? I have read some posts where a RS SPL meter read as low as 67-69 dB. I can't remember if it was on this thread or on another thread/forum.


No i didnt ( might do that next time) But yes it would be something like that. The EQ1 a good 7db or so lower than the SPL meter. I wonder why they might be so diffrent ? I know the RS meter is not very accurate but only by say +/-2db not 7 or 8db ?


----------



## Thomasdk1405

cavchameleon said:


> Thomas,
> 
> The Center/SAT out is only for level matching of your mains to the sub (to get them as close to the 75db range as possible) before running the actual EQ portion of the AS-EQ1. It's done after you run the auto-cal portion of your AVR (connected to the AS-EQ1 as described in the manual). When you level match, you can do just one speaker and 'correct' the other speakers manually for level matching or you can do all of the speakers (connecting the Center/Sat connection to each speaker, line-in, individually and level match each one with the SVS unit). After you are done with the level matching part, you then run the subwoofer(s) eq portion, this is where you will put the 1st mic position in your primary LP and that is the position that will calculate the correct distances for the sub (which you will then input in the BM portion of your AVR).
> 
> Hope that helps.
> Ray


Hi ! I know that - but after level calib to 75 db and at 1. mic posistion - you still need to have the left/center sat connected first sound heard are from speaker connected and second is the sub. So - in my setup here - I get different results if I connect Left, center and right speaker to the sat out, and yes - I start in prime LP when I start.
/Thomas


----------



## cavchameleon

counsil said:


> I figured that's what it must be. I have just read too many instances of people stating that their whole system is calibrated too soft after calibrating their AS-EQ1. Are the MultEQ XT mics that come with AVRs inferior to the mic that comes with the AS-EQ1?


Nope, they are pretty much the same quality. As Timoxx4 mentioned, many do not have any flavor of Audyssey, so that would be another case. In any case, if the system calibrated a bit softer, the levels can easily be adjusted up a few db as long as it's done globally.

Ray


----------



## cavchameleon

Timoxx4 said:


> No i didnt ( might do that next time) But yes it would be something like that. The EQ1 a good 7db or so lower than the SPL meter. I wonder why they might be so diffrent ? I know the RS meter is not very accurate but only by say +/-2db not 7 or 8db ?


Actually, the RS meter is good for level comparisons only, not against absolute spl. I have a RS meter and two other SPL meters, one of which is calibrated. The RS is off by 6db (at least mine is) compared to the calibrates. Like I mentioned before, these meters are good to get levels equivalent to each other. If you want the levels higher, either change the level settings globally or just turn the master volume up (same result). BTW, whey you are comparing the levels of the RS to the EQ1, are they in the exact same position (or just next to each other) while you are doing the level adjustment? I'm just curious if you are seeing that difference 'live' during the adjustments (is the RS set to 'C' and 'Slow')?

Thanks,
Ray


----------



## cavchameleon

Thomasdk1405 said:


> Hi ! I know that - but after level calib to 75 db and at 1. mic posistion - you still need to have the left/center sat connected first sound heard are from speaker connected and second is the sub. So - in my setup here - I get different results if I connect Left, center and right speaker to the sat out, and yes - I start in prime LP when I start.
> /Thomas


Got it! Sorry, didn't mean to assume that you did not do that step. During the setup, I'm assuming you have all BM off (it usually is on the 'EXT In's on most receivers). Also, your L/R go a lot deeper than the center, so the mic may be seeing a higher output from them compared to the center and speaker position (i.e. the L speaker is near a corner and the R is not, would change the levels due to acoustic amplification created by the walls/corner). Maybe this is the issue. Why not call Ed at SVS, he is very helpful (as are others there) in answering questions and working through your issues - then you can report here on what their ideas are :bigsmile:.

Ray


----------



## counsil

cavchameleon said:


> Actually, the RS meter is good for level comparisons only, not against absolute spl. I have a RS meter and two other SPL meters, one of which is calibrated. The RS is off by 6db (at least mine is) compared to the calibrates. Like I mentioned before, these meters are good to get levels equivalent to each other. If you want the levels higher, either change the level settings globally or just turn the master volume up (same result). BTW, whey you are comparing the levels of the RS to the EQ1, are they in the exact same position (or just next to each other) while you are doing the level adjustment? I'm just curious if you are seeing that difference 'live' during the adjustments (is the RS set to 'C' and 'Slow')?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ray


You state that your RS meter is off by 6dB. Globally? When measuring against internal test tones for your sub? Satellites?

I own the Audyssey Sub Equalizer. When I calibrated it with Audyssey Pro, the analog RS meter read 67/68 when the display read 0.0dB (75dB). The tip of the meter was right next to the tip of the Pro mic. That's a moot point in my case though because I moved the Pro mic and RS meter around a foot or so and the readings maintained the same SPL. My analog RS meter must be off by 7/8 dB when measuring the sub? My RS meter reads 75dB for all of the other channels... spot on. My RS meter must be good there.


----------



## cavchameleon

counsil said:


> You state that your RS meter is off by 6dB. Globally? When measuring against internal test tones for your sub? Satellites?
> 
> I own the Audyssey Sub Equalizer. When I calibrated it with Audyssey Pro, the analog RS meter read 67/68 when the display read 0.0dB (75dB). The tip of the meter was right next to the tip of the Pro mic. That's a moot point in my case though because I moved the Pro mic and RS meter around a foot or so and the readings maintained the same SPL. My analog RS meter must be off by 7/8 dB when measuring the sub? My RS meter reads 75dB for all of the other channels... spot on. My RS meter must be good there.


Ahh, a bit clearer now. Yes, the freq response of the RS meter does drop in the lower registers, which would account for your issue. Globally, my RS meter is off compared to my calibrated one. Read this article:

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


Ray

PS, still a great tool though and fairly accurate for most uses.


----------



## Jason_Nolan

Only 1 row and 3-5 seats. Still closing on my new house, so we'll see. The room is 16x20. Not huge by any means.


----------



## Timoxx4

Bigger than my HT. Mine is only 12x17. For a dedicated home theatre with projector and 92" screen its small. 4 12" subs in floor IB too


----------



## cavchameleon

Jason_Nolan said:


> Only 1 row and 3-5 seats. Still closing on my new house, so we'll see. The room is 16x20. Not huge by any means.


That's actually a decent size and good for a family. Give us pics when you get it done.


----------



## cavchameleon

Timoxx4 said:


> Bigger than my HT. Mine is only 12x17. For a dedicated home theatre with projector and 92" screen its small. 4 12" subs in floor IB too


Yep, mine is a bit smaller than yours also. You have 4 12" subs in the floor in that size room:unbelievable:,
Wow!!! Talk about feeling the low end, bet it sounds impressive!!!

Do you have pics of your IB build, curious how you mounted them.

Thanks,
Ray


----------



## Timoxx4

Yeah it packs a punch for sure. I have never come close to going full power with them. Got them hooked up to a 2400w power amp (Behringer EP2500).:bigsmile: They are TC Sounds TC2+ subs.

Some pics.

The EQ1 has given them even more punch now. They sound great. Nice and tight bass that will go well beyond refrence levels at 20Hz no worries.


----------



## Jason_Nolan

Very nice!


----------



## cavchameleon

Very impressive Tim!!! Was that a crawl space or did you have to build up your floor? I like the style of your room, nice looking!!! Thanks for the pics.



Ray


----------



## Timoxx4

I built it out in my shed so its a built up floor.

In this pic you can just see the under floor space. Its quite small a space for an IB really but it is within the minimum required. I had to dig out a little where the manifolds sit. They actually sit on the ground and are screwed through the sides into the floor joists. Its great because they are attached to the floor they shake the floor and you can feel it right through the couch and your feet.










This is mostly the reason i got the AS-EQ1 because of my dual manifolds. I had reasonable bass before but because they are working as a pair of subs the EQ1 has been able to time align them better and get the most out of them.


----------



## cavchameleon

Very nice and unique build Timoxx4!!! That was a creative use of space. I'd never though of digging down to make the space (don't have that option unless I want to cut the slab - all house out here are on concrete slabs). But, I guess it could be done. Your space turned out incredible. Glad the AS-EQ1 really helped, especially since you do not have the option of moving the subs around. I like the idea of using a shed near the house - a separate 'isolated' room just for HT, Great idea!!! Well done :clap:

Ray


----------



## Pocobear

Hi, 

Have 2 questions, 1 - Does the cal mike on the AS-EQ1 have a threaded hole on the bottom for a tripod or mike boom to screw into?

2 - How many measurements are most of you guys taking, and have you found any really good mike patterns that work well. I was thinking of taking a couple of measurements in the peak and null areas of the room in addition to the seating area to sort of let the EQ1 know the worst case parts of the room. My room is about 27Lx15Wx9H, with my sub, PC12Ultra/2, 9 feet from the front wall on the left side of the room, just to the left of my left front speaker. I get a high peak at the front of the room, a null in the middle, and lesser peak at the rear of the room. Of course my seating area is almost in the middle (null) and due to 4 doors my seating options are limited. I hope I'm not expecting too much from the AS-EQ1 too tame this mess.

Timoxx4, love your idea of using a shed for a proper HT room. The IB idea is really neat!!!

Pocobear


----------



## bbtnt

Pocobear said:


> Hi,
> 
> Have 2 questions, 1 - Does the cal mike on the AS-EQ1 have a threaded hole on the bottom for a tripod or mike boom to screw into?
> 
> 2 - How many measurements are most of you guys taking, and have you found any really good mike patterns that work well. I was thinking of taking a couple of measurements in the peak and null areas of the room in addition to the seating area to sort of let the EQ1 know the worst case parts of the room. My room is about 27Lx15Wx9H, with my sub, PC12Ultra/2, 9 feet from the front wall on the left side of the room, just to the left of my left front speaker. I get a high peak at the front of the room, a null in the middle, and lesser peak at the rear of the room. Of course my seating area is almost in the middle (null) and due to 4 doors my seating options are limited. I hope I'm not expecting too much from the AS-EQ1 too tame this mess.
> 
> Timoxx4, love your idea of using a shed for a proper HT room. The IB idea is really neat!!!
> 
> Pocobear


1. Not sure

2. Owner's manual says do not measure where no one will be listening.
From the owner's manual page 24:
"The best practice is to take two measurements at each seating position, one at normal ear height and the other a few inches lower to represent a shorter and/or slouched listener. You can also take two measurements at ear height in the approximate position of each ear. Keep the microphone tip at least a few inches away from the seat back. If there are also positions where people may be standing for part of a presentation, those locations can be measured as well. Do not take measurements in locations where no one will normally be listening. You may take up to 32 measurements in total."

Looking forward to getting mine also. Hopefully will ship in time to get it this coming weekend.


----------



## cavchameleon

Pocobear said:


> Hi,
> 
> Have 2 questions, 1 - Does the cal mike on the AS-EQ1 have a threaded hole on the bottom for a tripod or mike boom to screw into?
> 
> 2 - How many measurements are most of you guys taking, and have you found any really good mike patterns that work well. I was thinking of taking a couple of measurements in the peak and null areas of the room in addition to the seating area to sort of let the EQ1 know the worst case parts of the room. My room is about 27Lx15Wx9H, with my sub, PC12Ultra/2, 9 feet from the front wall on the left side of the room, just to the left of my left front speaker. I get a high peak at the front of the room, a null in the middle, and lesser peak at the rear of the room. Of course my seating area is almost in the middle (null) and due to 4 doors my seating options are limited. I hope I'm not expecting too much from the AS-EQ1 too tame this mess.
> 
> Timoxx4, love your idea of using a shed for a proper HT room. The IB idea is really neat!!!
> 
> Pocobear


Hi Pocobear,

To answer your questions, 

1) yes, it does have a threaded insert that a standard camera tripod will fit. If using a boom mic stand, you will need an adapter. This one will fit:

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/CameraAdapt/

2) bbnt quoted from the manual the recomendations. If I remember correctly (don't quote me from this) Ed had mentioned a minimum of 8 positions should be taken to get a good 'view' of the room, within the listening area. But, why not take more, you have 32 to take and if you have a difficult room, it would be better. Also, it has been mentioned that this unit is particularly good in bad rooms (in a good room, it does not need to do that much correction).

Note though, it cannot replace better placement of seating or sub placement. Those should be done first. And, the middle of a room, as you mentioned, us usually the worst place to put seating as there is always a null there. If possible at all, pull your seating position further back. The peaks/nulls in your room are due to the room dimensions. Broadband bass traps on the corners would help improve that some. 

Ray

PS: Bryan from GIK acoustics frequents the Shack and would be the best to answer your questions on acoustics referring to your issues. I'm not an expert in the area - he is. Search for him, he's great at answering questions related to room acoustics.


----------



## Timoxx4

cavchameleon said:


> Very nice and unique build Timoxx4!!! That was a creative use of space. I'd never though of digging down to make the space (don't have that option unless I want to cut the slab - all house out here are on concrete slabs). But, I guess it could be done. Your space turned out incredible. Glad the AS-EQ1 really helped, especially since you do not have the option of moving the subs around. I like the idea of using a shed near the house - a separate 'isolated' room just for HT, Great idea!!! Well done :clap:
> 
> Ray




Thanks guys,

Yeah it worked out quite well in the end. I got all my ideas from the AVS forum guys in the dedicated HT build threads. And my IB subwoofer ideas from the Cult of the Infinitely Baffled web site. That's the only thing with going to IB subs is you cant move them after they are in. So you have to get there location right the first time.

I would have liked to be able to build a bigger HT room but i had to fit it into my shed with still some shed space left over. The beauty of being out in the shed is i can make a lot of noise out there and get things shaking withought shaking the main house down. And by having the IB subs vent into the under floor space it sort of contains the sound under the floor so dampens any noise from getting outside too.


----------



## JimP

I understand that one of the benefits of the AE1 is that the FIR filters it employs doesn't cause distortions at high Q levels over traditional equalizers. 

My question is how high is high? At what Q level does this advantage of the FIR filters becomes relevant?


----------



## cavchameleon

JimP said:


> I understand that one of the benefits of the AE1 is that the FIR filters it employs doesn't cause distortions at high Q levels over traditional equalizers.
> 
> My question is how high is high? At what Q level does this advantage of the FIR filters becomes relevant?


Jim,

That actually should be directed directly to Chris Kyriakakis, Founder and CTO of Audyssey. That way you get an accurate answer. He frequents the Audyssey thread at the AVSforum:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=795421&page=444

He's been very good at answering questions on the technology. Ed also frequents this forum here at the Shack when he has the time and can also answer your question.

Ray


----------



## JimP

Thanks Ray


----------



## cavchameleon

JimP said:


> Thanks Ray


You're welcome!


----------



## cavchameleon

In case anyone wants to know, here is the answer to Jim's question from Chris from Audyssey:


Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP View Post
I understand that one of the benefits of the AE1 is that the FIR filters it employs doesn't cause distortions at high Q levels over traditional equalizers.

My question is how high is high? At what Q level does this advantage of the FIR filters becomes relevant?
Hi Jim,
That's almost impossible to answer because it depends on so many factors: they type of IIR filter, what other things are happening around that particular band, and the type of content (transients vs steady steady state). The same is true for FIR filters. There are several considerations that are application dependent (length, linear vs minimum phase, etc.). There is a good tutorial on filters here, although it's not audio DSP specific.

Link: http://www.dspguru.com/info/faqs/index.htm

__________________
Chris

Audyssey Blog: Small vs. Large, DSX, Reference vs. Preference
Audyssey on facebook
audyssey is offline Report Post Reply With Quote


----------



## cavchameleon

Another piece of good info from Ed (an issue that some were curious about):

In dual combined mode the AS-EQ1 independently level matches and time aligns each subwoofer, and then builds the EQ file for both subwoofers together. In dual discrete mode, the AS-EQ1 builds a separate EQ file for each subwoofer. We will correct/clarify this in the Operator's Manual.
__________________
Ed Mullen
Product Development / Customer Service
SVSound


----------



## cavchameleon

Ed from SVS mentioned that the units are in customs at the moment and should be ready for shipment beginning of next week. So, there should be some good reviews here within 1-2 weeks following.


----------



## JimP

Ed said that on Monday so it may be out of customs by now.

By the way, what does customs do to shipments like this beside obviously delaying them?


----------



## TRiSS

The local reseller here (l-sound, reseller for europe) charged my Creditcard somewhere end of last week they say they charge upon shipping) but haven't seen a shipping notice so far... But that should indeed mean shipping is imminent in EU too!


----------



## cavchameleon

JimP said:


> Ed said that on Monday so it may be out of customs by now.
> 
> By the way, what does customs do to shipments like this beside obviously delaying them?


I think customs is supposed to check if the items are 'legit', but not sure if they actually check the load or just the manifest. 

Hopefully they'll be on the way now, but have not heard of anyone being charged or given an email notice yet.


----------



## cavchameleon

TRiSS said:


> The local reseller here (l-sound, reseller for europe) charged my Creditcard somewhere end of last week they say they charge upon shipping) but haven't seen a shipping notice so far... But that should indeed mean shipping is imminent in EU too!


Wonder if Europe gets them sooner - not as far to travel.


----------



## TRiSS

cavchameleon said:


> Wonder if Europe gets them sooner - not as far to travel.


Don't think so, because they claim all units are verified first at the SVS headquarters:



http://www.lsound.no/index.php?side=info&group=499&subgroup=0&id=757839 said:


> Final test and assembly in SVS's Ohio headquarters


----------



## cavchameleon

TRiSS said:


> Don't think so, because they claim all units are verified first at the SVS headquarters:


Interesting, I do remember Ed mentioning that. So they ship it here first then back to Europe. Seems like it would be good to have a '2nd' headquarters in that part of the world.


----------



## Jason_Nolan

Not exactly mid-July, but I guess I'm just antsy...


----------



## TRiSS

weird, there just totally unexpectedly turned up an EQ-1 at my (office's) doorstep... I never got a shipping note though, but a pleasant surprise it is!
This was ordered through l-sound, EU retailer.

Now I just need to wait till the evening to unpack and experiment....


----------



## cavchameleon

TRiSS said:


> weird, there just totally unexpectedly turned up an EQ-1 at my (office's) doorstep... I never got a shipping note though, but a pleasant surprise it is!
> This was ordered through l-sound, EU retailer.
> 
> Now I just need to wait till the evening to unpack and experiment....


That would be a pleasant surprise! Enjoy and do let us know your impressions.


----------



## cavchameleon

TRiSS,

Just curious, how much time from when you were charged for the product to when you received it?

Thanks,
Ray


----------



## TRiSS

cavchameleon said:


> TRiSS,
> 
> Just curious, how much time from when you were charged for the product to when you received it?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ray


I was charged the 20th, and I received it this morning, so that's about a week


----------



## cavchameleon

TRiSS said:


> I was charged the 20th, and I received it this morning, so that's about a week


Thanks, appreciate the response!


----------



## TRiSS

Didn't have much time yet to experiment with it, and I also seem to have a problem with level matching on my marantz receiver (when i put it in 7.1 direct mode to bypass bass management etc it seems to ignore both the master volume as well as the channel trims), but my first impression is already very favorable: decent packaging (box in a box etc), well built, solid materials, etc

Didn't really expect anything else from svs though  I hope to be able to do a complete setup and take some measurements this weekend.


----------



## cavchameleon

Well, I had to wait until I got home to check if my Marantz does the same thing (have one in my editing room). I've never used the 7.1 inputs before. You are right. When in the 7.1 mode, all the speaker levels are fixed at '0' and BM is off and nothing is adjustable. You may want to check with SVS on how to do the level adjustment. My suspicion is that you'll have to do the following:

1. Pre-set the AVR to pre auto-cal conditions
2. Use one of the other inputs for the level check (i.e. in stereo mode, choose the L speaker)
3. Adjust the levels using the SVS guide/software to match the level of the speaker to the sub (75db) and make a note as to how much you had to lower/raise the level of the AVR for that channel in the speaker set-up menu).
4. Re-do the auto-cal in the AVR as per instructions from SVS with the AS-EQ1 attached
5. Manually adjust each of the levels of each speaker in the AVR by the amount from #3 (this will take place of the 'leveling' step that follows the AVR auto-cal step with the AS-EQ1 attached).
6. Do the auto cal portion for the subs as described for the AS-EQ1
7. Re-adjust the level and distance in your AVR for the sub (put the level and distance that the AS-EQ1 software suggest for the AVR

Hope this makes sense. I would run it by SVS though.

Ray


----------



## TRiSS

cavchameleon said:


> 1. Pre-set the AVR to pre auto-cal conditions
> 2. Use one of the other inputs for the level check (i.e. in stereo mode, choose the L speaker)
> 3. Adjust the levels using the SVS guide/software to match the level of the speaker to the sub (75db) and make a note as to how much you had to lower/raise the level of the AVR for that channel in the speaker set-up menu).
> 4. Re-do the auto-cal in the AVR as per instructions from SVS with the AS-EQ1 attached
> 5. Manually adjust each of the levels of each speaker in the AVR by the amount from #3 (this will take place of the 'leveling' step that follows the AVR auto-cal step with the AS-EQ1 attached).
> 6. Do the auto cal portion for the subs as described for the AS-EQ1
> 7. Re-adjust the level and distance in your AVR for the sub (put the level and distance that the AS-EQ1 software suggest for the AVR
> 
> Hope this makes sense. I would run it by SVS though.
> 
> Ray



I was indeed thinking of something similar, with the difference that I don't have auto-cal, it's an older model (SR7400), so I would replace 1 by "reset to factory" perhaps, and skip step 4. Stupid me forgot to write down the old settings before starting to poke around in the menu, so I will have to redo all level matching anyway.

There is a separate menu for 7.1-input trims, but that didn't seem to do much either.... I'll fumble some more with it first.


----------



## cavchameleon

TRiSS said:


> I was indeed thinking of something similar, with the difference that I don't have auto-cal, it's an older model (SR7400), so I would replace 1 by "reset to factory" perhaps, and skip step 4. Stupid me forgot to write down the old settings before starting to poke around in the menu, so I will have to redo all level matching anyway.
> 
> There is a separate menu for 7.1-input trims, but that didn't seem to do much either.... I'll fumble some more with it first.


That should work fine. If you set everything to '0' and use the L channel to channel balance, then after doing all the setup with the AS-EQ1, you can do a manual calibration on levels - leaving the left channel at the level from the leveling step with the SVS unit. Then calibrate all the other channels to match the level of the L ch. As far as the distance, the AS-EQ1 will give you the distance to put in for the sub (and it will seem much further to take in account the electronic delay of the unit, so it is correct) and manually put in the distances to the sats (take the measurement from the point where you place the mic for the primary LP to the center of the largest driver of your sats). 

Let us know how it sounds once you're set up.

Ray


----------



## TRiSS

cavchameleon said:


> That should work fine. If you set everything to '0' and use the L channel to channel balance, then after doing all the setup with the AS-EQ1, you can do a manual calibration on levels - leaving the left channel at the level from the leveling step with the SVS unit. Then calibrate all the other channels to match the level of the L ch. As far as the distance, the AS-EQ1 will give you the distance to put in for the sub (and it will seem much further to take in account the electronic delay of the unit, so it is correct) and manually put in the distances to the sats (take the measurement from the point where you place the mic for the primary LP to the center of the largest driver of your sats).
> 
> Let us know how it sounds once you're set up.
> 
> Ray


I hope to be able to try that this evening.

OT:
I have been thinking about upgrading the receiver though (thinking about an Onkyo 876), since that would give me HDMI-switching, video processing, and autosetup/MultEQ XT, and this stupidity with the 7.1 analog inputs may just be the little push I needed :bigsmile:


----------



## BigPines

TRiSS said:


> OT:
> I have been thinking about upgrading the receiver though (thinking about an Onkyo 876), since that would give me HDMI-switching, video processing, and autosetup/MultEQ XT, and this stupidity with the 7.1 analog inputs may just be the little push I needed :bigsmile:


I have that AVR and it is great! It should work well with the AS-EQ1 which I am considering myself. If you have any questions about the 876, PM me.

Mike


----------



## cavchameleon

TRiSS said:


> I hope to be able to try that this evening.
> 
> OT:
> I have been thinking about upgrading the receiver though (thinking about an Onkyo 876), since that would give me HDMI-switching, video processing, and autosetup/MultEQ XT, and this stupidity with the 7.1 analog inputs may just be the little push I needed :bigsmile:


That would be a great choice of AVR as Mike mentioned above. Plus, I'm partial to having Audyssey for autosetup, it's great IMO - especially the MultEQ XT version (their best) and will integrate extremely well with the AS-EQ1. I think you'll be amazed. Onkyo makes great power supplies, so can push speakers nicely.

Ray


----------



## goonstopher

I have the "130 watt" version of the 805 with MultiEQ XT and just found out the gf put the as-eq1 on a credit card, excited but really can't afford it


----------



## counsil

goonstopher said:


> I have the "130 watt" version of the 805 with MultiEQ XT and just found out the gf put the as-eq1 on a credit card, excited but really can't afford it


I don't think you will be disappointed. You have some nice equipment and speakers. The AS-EQ1 will fit in perfectly. Besides, you could always dump your gf, and she would be stuck with the bill! I'm kidding...:innocent:


----------



## Doug McBride

*Couple of Tips*

Hi Folks - thought I'd jump in and set a quick breakpoint in the thread since if all goes well, most of you should be seeing your AS-EQ1s shipping next week. Based upon experiences from the original batch of AS-EQ1s and many of the posts in various forums and what we get at SVS, here's a few tips to make things go faster for you and hopefully cause less consternation and discussion:

* Please read the manual and FAQ. The latest version of both can be found on the SVS web site. The manual was recently updated and the new version will not be on the CD that comes with your AS-EQ1. The link on the CD to the AS-EQ1 FAQ is valid however.

Manual:

http://www.svsound.com/manuals/aseq_1_operatormanual_rev1_1_lowres.pdf

FAQ:

http://svsound.com/as-eq1/as-eq1_subeq_faq.pdf


* Front Panel. It's normal for the right-hand LED (Status Indicator) to be Red when first starting the AS-EQ1. This LED is supposed to be Red when there's no valid set of filters in the box (initial state) or while it is being calibrated, usually from the Level Match task onward. It will also be Red if you disable the AS-EQ1 using the On/Off function of the SubEQ top screen.

* Auto EQ Assist. If you use the Auto EQ function, do it BEFORE you do level matching and calibration with the AS-EQ1. There is an allusion in SubEQ (the software that sets up the AS-EQ1) dialogue that if you have an Audyssey-equipped AVR or Pre/Pro that you should skip the Auto EQ process (which you are free to do if you don't use it of course). The purpose of Auto EQ Assist is to eliminate double-EQing the lower frequencies which would negate the benefits of the AS-EQ1 and the AutoEQ technology used makes no difference in this regard.

* Level Matching. No magic here, you've all done it before perhaps using a test disc or built in tones and a SPL meter, etc. Same concept, except the mic, tones and levels are coming from the AS-EQ1. It could be very possible that you find your satellites are reading at or close to 75dB when you do your level match and the Sub may be close. Or, it could be way off. This function was put in to SubEQ to address both the qualitative (sound) and quantitative (trim/clipping) issues around having all channels at the same and a known level.

If you set your levels using the AS-EQ1 then go and measure with different tones (disc/processor) and a different meter, there's a good possibility that the results may come out differently level-wise (many folks have noted that using a RS SPL meter, held right next to the Audyssey AS-EQ1 microphone during level matching, shows about a -6dB difference), but should still read the same for all channels (unless you've changed them).

* Measurement. You might want to experiment with 5 - 7 positions initially until you've had a chance to view the results (graphs and processor settings) and you are comfortable with them. Even though it's easy to do a whole bunch of measurements (up to 32) with the AS-EQ1, it still takes time for a redo - and it seems almost everyone does 3 - 5 measurement exercises until they settle down and just enjoy the bass... 

Also realize the more measurements you take, the more averaging must take place in the algorithms and will affect the sound. A best practice is to just measure listening positions (ear positions are OK) and listen for a while. Then try more positions and see which one you like better.

* Detection Results. Pay attention and write these values down. Also do a sanity check as sometimes this information, if it doesn't align with reality, can point out problems. For example, I found that my subs were wired out of phase after noticing the distance kept changing on various runs and was never "right". 

The Distance value will read further by roughly 8 feet due to the additional processing time in the AS-EQ1 so that's normal. The Trim level should be relatively small if you did your level setting to 75dB. You will see some negative trim suggested to account for the acoustical coupling of multiple subs, and you can see positive trim changes suggested if the AS-EQ1 has a big peak it is loping off, etc.

The info on Satellite will probably show as Large if SubEQ detects usable output below 40Hz. You may see a crossover suggested which is derived from the measurement of the Satellite speaker which may help with smaller speakers but use your own judgment here. SVS suggests that all speakers be set to Small with the crossover set appropriately to the capabilities of your speakers in any case.

Lastly, there's no correlation in EQ between the speakers and the subs - in other words no part of the resulting filter for the sub are affected by the results of measuring the one Satellite during the Measurement Task.

* Save Results. This is where you can view graphs of the before and after results of your calibration, and also transfer the filters from SubEQ to the AS-EQ1. Until you "Save Permanently to AS-EQ1", your graphs will have a "DRAFT" watermark on them. You can print these graphs using your browser, you can capture them to the clipboard by right-clicking on them, or you can "print" them to a .PDF file by using a utility designed to do so. SVS has supplied one such Freeware utility called "CutePDF" on the installation CD.

Note there have been some reports of filters not being transferred correctly to the AS-EQ1 using the "Transfer to AS-EQ1" button (the one to the left of the "Save Permanently..." button). This problem is being investigated and will be addressed in the next release of SubEQ. In the mean time it is suggested that you not rely on this function.


Most users have reported a noticeable difference in the quality of their bass when first listening after EQing with the AS-EQ1, a majority for the positive. Others have commented that they weren't sure if they liked the result, but over a period of a few days indicated they did indeed think it was better. Why?

1. What does "flat bass" really sound like? Unless you've worked your rear end off using other forms of EQ, you've probably not gotten very close to flat and gotten used to the sound. Even if you've gotten close to flat, it's likely there was still a certain amount of ringing in your environment. The AS-EQ1 in a majority of the cases does a respectable job of flattening in the frequency domain, and damping in the time domain. The resulting sound will be different and subjectively most people will say it is better.

2. "I've lost the slam in my bass after EQing with the AS-EQ1". If properly Level Matched during calibration, there's a couple of reasons for this. One or more peaks in your environment's FR may have been cut down which were in a range (or the harmonics were) that you associated with "slam". Additionally in some cases, subs have been run warm-to-hot SPL-wise and during the Level Match process have been brought back into level alignment with the rest of the speakers. Last, the Master Volume level you are used to running may have changed due to Level Matching resulting in an overall system-wide reduction in level.

To be fair, you should really listen to your system for a few days and get accustomed to the new sound. Then feel free to experiment. Personally I like my bass on the spicy side so I've bumped the Trim level in my processor up to increase the bass by a few dB. The results are still more pure than pre-EQ, just a little more of it. In other words - don't be afraid to turn it up!

I hope this information helps you with the setup of your AS-EQ1 in the near future, and perhaps saves you a post or two asking for help or contacting SVS for assistance. If you still have questions or need advice, there's a lot of knowledgeable users in this thread, and of course you can always contact us at [email protected] .

Enjoy your new toy! We think you will.

Doug McBride
SVS Software Services


----------



## NainoKami

Hi guys,

first time poster, new AS-EQ1 owner.

I've run into an annoying problem with my Denon AVR-4306 and the AS-EQ1. The Receiver doesn't seem to understand that it's receiving a flat signal and still tries to correct it. After several emails back and forth with Chris Kyriakakis, Founder and Chief Technology Officer of Audyssey Laboratories, we came to this conclusion:

"Hi Simon,

We are developing a theory. I had not paid attention initially the model number of your Denon. However, what we think is happening is this: The MultEQ software in that AVR is the original version from 3 years ago. At that time, we had not yet invented the method of increasing the resolution of the filters in the low frequencies (that is now in all new AVRs and the AS-EQ1). Because of that, the low frequency correction capability (below about 40 Hz) was limited to broad features and not fine details.

So, what we think is happening is that the MultEQ in the AVR sees some ripple or bump or noise (who knows) in the measurement and tries to correct it, but runs out of resolution. For technical reasons (too hard to explain in an email), the mic is actually on during the Auto EQ assist function. In any case, the only work around I can suggest is for you to try it without Auto EQ assist. The subwoofer filter in the AVR will still try to correct the flattened response in the AS-EQ1, but you may not run into this problem.

This is my best theory so far...

Thanks,
Chris"

Here are the graphs to support my findings.
First one is the pure output from my AVR. Blue trace is with the AVR audyssey disabled, and the purple trace is with audyssey enabled. The green trace is a loopback measurement, to ensure the accuracy of the measurements.










The second one is my actual in room response. Again Blue is no AVR EQ, and purple is with AVR EQ.









All I can say is... Now I need a new receiver. :hissyfit:

Thanks for letting me rant... 

Kind regards,
Simon Westenholz


----------



## counsil

Simon,

That really sucks. I feel for you. Don't fret, Chris's solution will probably work just fine.

I don't own the AS-EQ1, but the Audyssey Sub Equalizer. It is basically the same thing except you use the Audyssey Installer kit (Pro mic, etc.) to calibrate it.

Anyway, since you cannot use the Auto-EQ Assist feature with the Sub Equalizer (when you use the Installer kit on your AVR, long story...), you have no choice but to run MultEQ Pro on your AVR with the Sub Equalizer in the mix. This may sound confusing, but let my REW graphs put you at ease...

Before and after running MultEQ Pro on my Denon with the Sub Equalizer in the mix...










No smoothing...










As you can see, running Audyssey on top of the Sub Equalizer works out just fine. Just look at it as running Audyssey a second time will just fix whatever the AS-EQ1 couldn't.

Just so you know Audyssey recommends NOT using the Auto-EQ Assist feature when you have an AVR or Pre/Pro with Audyssey capabilities (including 2EQ, MultEQ, MultEQ XT, etc.) in regards to the Sub Equalizer. I am not sure why Doug McBride posted that the SubEQ software states this but not to follow it. I am sure he has a perfectly good explanation.

Addition...

I forgot to mention that your results may not look so close as mine do. In my case I am using the exact same mic to calibrate my Sub Equalizer as I do to calibrate my AVR. You on the other hand will be using the AS-EQ1 mic and your AVR mic. The differences between the two mics may show up in your REW graphs.

Again, Good Luck!


----------



## NainoKami

Thanks for your reply, counsil. I will try running the built in audyssey again tomorrow, without the assist. I'll let you know how it pans out... I do however still fear the low resolution of the MultEQ implementation in my AVR may harm the results, but I guess we'll see! 

Thanks again...!


----------



## counsil

NainoKami said:


> Thanks for your reply, counsil. I will try running the built in audyssey again tomorrow, without the assist. I'll let you know how it pans out... I do however still fear the low resolution of the MultEQ implementation in my AVR may harm the results, but I guess we'll see!
> 
> Thanks again...!


I have already had this discussion with several other folks. I don't think a lesser resolution solution necessarily means it makes course corrections. It just doesn't have as much to work with. I may be wrong though. :hide:

I am really surprised that this particular scenario got through the initial testing phases of this product. I can see them missing to test against an old Sony or Yamaha Auto EQ solution, but for it to not work against one of Audyssey's own EQ solutions? Come on now. I thought I read somewhere that the 'patent pending' Auto EQ Assist feature was designed to work with all Auto-EQ solutions? :scratch:


----------



## NainoKami

counsil said:


> I have already had this discussion with several other folks. I don't think a lesser resolution solution necessarily means it makes course corrections. It just doesn't have as much to work with. I may be wrong though. :hide:
> 
> I am really surprised that this particular scenario got through the initial testing phases of this product. I can see them missing to test against an old Sony or Yamaha Auto EQ solution, but for it to not work against one of Audyssey's own EQ solutions? Come on now. I thought I read somewhere that the 'patent pending' Auto EQ Assist feature was designed to work with *all Auto-EQ solutions?* :scratch:


See, that's my thinking as well... In my case it's "correcting" *-8.6 dB at 10 Hz*... That's a LOT of correction that shouldn't happen, and yet it does...

But I'll try the suggested remedy!


----------



## cavchameleon

*Re: Couple of Tips*



Doug McBride said:


> Hi Folks - thought I'd jump in and set a quick breakpoint in the thread since if all goes well, most of you should be seeing your AS-EQ1s shipping next week. Based upon experiences from the original batch of AS-EQ1s and many of the posts in various forums and what we get at SVS, here's a few tips to make things go faster for you and hopefully cause less consternation and discussion:
> 
> * Please read the manual and FAQ. The latest version of both can be found on the SVS web site. The manual was recently updated and the new version will not be on the CD that comes with your AS-EQ1. The link on the CD to the AS-EQ1 FAQ is valid however.
> 
> Manual:
> 
> http://www.svsound.com/manuals/aseq_1_operatormanual_rev1_1_lowres.pdf
> 
> FAQ:
> 
> http://svsound.com/as-eq1/as-eq1_subeq_faq.pdf
> 
> 
> Enjoy your new toy! We think you will.
> 
> Doug McBride
> SVS Software Services


Doug,

Thanks a LOT for the info! Many of us are looking forward to this unit! :yay2:

Ray


----------



## Doug McBride

counsil said:


> Just so you know Audyssey recommends NOT using the Auto-EQ Assist feature when you have an AVR or Pre/Pro with Audyssey capabilities (including 2EQ, MultEQ, MultEQ XT, etc.) in regards to the Sub Equalizer. I am not sure why Doug McBride posted that the SubEQ software states this but not to follow it. I am sure he has a perfectly good explanation.


Sorry - my intent was not to confuse. Let me add a little more data.

Since the test tones from the AS-EQ1 do not come from the receiver/processor (they come directly from the AS-EQ1), no EQ has been applied and as such cannot be accounted for by SubEQ (software). The filters downloaded to the AS-EQ1 will be those measured for the room only. Then when you use your system, if Auto EQ of any kind/flavor had been run that affect sub frequencies, you're passing a signal to the sub from the processor that has been EQ'ed. Now the AS-EQ1 runs it through its filters that were set up with no EQ applied to the signal and you're getting double EQ. May as well EQ using the AS-EQ1 and then move it to another room with regards to proper results.

If the tones used by SubEQ were passed through the processor like the Sat signal (although we ask that all processing be disabled even on that so no LF is routed to the sub) and EQ was applied, then SubEQ can take that into consideration and add additional EQ if necessary. However they are not.

Based upon the way the test tones are generated by the AS-EQ1 and if you did not want to use Auto EQ Assist in SubEQ but did want to use the Auto EQ feature of your receiver/processor, you'd need to disable EQ in the receiver/processor, set up the AS-EQ1 skipping Auto EQ Assist, then with the AS-EQ1 in the signal path run the Auto EQ on the receiver/processor. This would result in some double EQ but it would be accounted for in setting up the receiver/processor. YMMV with non-Audyssey, (non high-resolution filters) in this scenario so just be aware of the possibility of degradation.

Thanks,

Doug


----------



## NainoKami

Doug McBride said:


> Sorry - my intent was not to confuse. Let me add a little more data.
> 
> Since the test tones from the AS-EQ1 do not come from the receiver/processor (they come directly from the AS-EQ1), no EQ has been applied and as such cannot be accounted for by SubEQ (software). The filters downloaded to the AS-EQ1 will be those measured for the room only. Then when you use your system, if Auto EQ of any kind/flavor had been run that affect sub frequencies, you're passing a signal to the sub from the processor that has been EQ'ed. Now the AS-EQ1 runs it through its filters that were set up with no EQ applied to the signal and you're getting double EQ. May as well EQ using the AS-EQ1 and then move it to another room with regards to proper results.
> 
> If the tones used by SubEQ were passed through the processor like the Sat signal (although we ask that all processing be disabled even on that so no LF is routed to the sub) and EQ was applied, then SubEQ can take that into consideration and add additional EQ if necessary. However they are not.
> 
> Based upon the way the test tones are generated by the AS-EQ1 and if you did not want to use Auto EQ Assist in SubEQ but did want to use the Auto EQ feature of your receiver/processor, you'd need to disable EQ in the receiver/processor, set up the AS-EQ1 skipping Auto EQ Assist, then with the AS-EQ1 in the signal path run the Auto EQ on the receiver/processor. This would result in some double EQ but it would be accounted for in setting up the receiver/processor. YMMV with non-Audyssey, (non high-resolution filters) in this scenario so just be aware of the possibility of degradation.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Doug


Hi Doug,

Now I'm confused...  Or not really... I get why the Auto EQ assist is there, and why it should be used. I just don't get why it doesn't work as intended in my case? Could you chime in with a theory per chance? 

Thanks,
Simon


----------



## Doug McBride

NainoKami said:


> Hi Doug,
> 
> Now I'm confused...  Or not really... I get why the Auto EQ assist is there, and why it should be used. I just don't get why it doesn't work as intended in my case? Could you chime in with a theory per chance?
> 
> Thanks,
> Simon


I read your previous post but for some reason did not see the graphs. Could you point me to another post that has the workflow you used in setting up the AS-EQ1 as well as the graphs? Alternatively could you consolidate and post? I don't have a clear enough picture of the situation at the moment to jump in with any ideas.

I read Chris's response and the only thing I'm at odds with is the receiver/processor Microphone being live during sub tones when routed through the AS-EQ1 during Auto EQ Assist - if I understood his post correctly. AS-EQ1 device specs call for the Mic to shunted to ground during sub tones so nothing gets through during AutoEQ Assist, and I believe that has been tested within SVS for proper function including shouting into the mic.

Doug


----------



## NainoKami

Doug McBride said:


> I read your previous post but for some reason did not see the graphs. Could you point me to another post that has the workflow you used in setting up the AS-EQ1 as well as the graphs? Alternatively could you consolidate and post? I don't have a clear enough picture of the situation at the moment to jump in with any ideas.
> 
> I read Chris's response and the only thing I'm at odds with is the receiver/processor Microphone being live during sub tones when routed through the AS-EQ1 during Auto EQ Assist - if I understood his post correctly. AS-EQ1 device specs call for the Mic to shunted to ground during sub tones so nothing gets through during AutoEQ Assist, and I believe that has been tested within SVS for proper function including shouting into the mic.
> 
> Doug


The most important graph is here http://dufduf.dk/images/all-right-extended.tiff











I don't know if I can find a post with my workflow, but I can sum it up here. I have tried several times with the same results.

I had the Sub EQ software set to Auto EQ assist, routed the AVR measurement mic to the mic passthrough in, and used the supplied cable from the passthrough out to the mic input on the receiver, as per the manual. I then ran a full Audyssey calibration of the receiver, and everything comes through as it should. It pings all the satellite channels, and detects the sub, but no ping is heard, also as it should be. After the procedure is done, I continue to do the Sub EQ measurements, and everything here is fine.

The problem happens at some point in the Audyssey procedure in the reciever. It either doesn't receive a flat signal, or it corrects for something I'd call fictitious. As stated earlier it cuts from ca. 40 Hz and down, and even has a slight boost of 2 dB centered at about 70 Hz... Seems very odd to me. If the mic is inactive during measurement, I simply don't understand why my AVR Audyssey makes such a drastic correction. I wish there was some way I could find out if the signal being passed through the AS-EQ1 is indeed intact and flat... I have a feeling it's my receiver acting up, but still... I'd like to be reassured!

Hope this is enough for you to make a proper assessment of my issue.


----------



## Doug McBride

NainoKami said:


> The most important graph is here http://dufduf.dk/images/all-right-extended.tiff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if I can find a post with my workflow, but I can sum it up here. I have tried several times with the same results.
> 
> I had the Sub EQ software set to Auto EQ assist, routed the AVR measurement mic to the mic passthrough in, and used the supplied cable from the passthrough out to the mic input on the receiver, as per the manual. I then ran a full Audyssey calibration of the receiver, and everything comes through as it should. It pings all the satellite channels, and detects the sub, but no ping is heard, also as it should be. After the procedure is done, I continue to do the Sub EQ measurements, and everything here is fine.
> 
> The problem happens at some point in the Audyssey procedure in the reciever. It either doesn't receive a flat signal, or it corrects for something I'd call fictitious. As stated earlier it cuts from ca. 40 Hz and down, and even has a slight boost of 2 dB centered at about 70 Hz... Seems very odd to me. If the mic is inactive during measurement, I simply don't understand why my AVR Audyssey makes such a drastic correction. I wish there was some way I could find out if the signal being passed through the AS-EQ1 is indeed intact and flat... I have a feeling it's my receiver acting up, but still... I'd like to be reassured!
> 
> Hope this is enough for you to make a proper assessment of my issue.


Thanks - more questions though. Is the AS-EQ1 in the signal path for the graph? If so, have you done a run without the AS-EQ1 and can you pass that along? Could you also share the before and after graphs from SubEQ for the AS-EQ1 cal run?

Doug


----------



## bac4822

Doug, 

I printed out the original AS-EQ1 manual and have compared it to the new version, 1.2, and the only differences I found were the title page and a modification to the note on page 18. Did I miss anything?

I was going to email SVS technical support with this question, but am posting it here since a few others may have the same question. My receiver, a Yamaha RX-V659, equalizes the speakers, sets levels and distances on the speakers and sub, sets speaker sizes and crossover, but performs no sub equalization. In this situation, do I perform or skip the first step of integrating the AS-EQ1 with my receiver?


----------



## NainoKami

Doug McBride said:


> Thanks - more questions though. Is the AS-EQ1 in the signal path for the graph? If so, have you done a run without the AS-EQ1 and can you pass that along? Could you also share the before and after graphs from SubEQ for the AS-EQ1 cal run?
> 
> Doug


Thank you for taking the time to look at this problem, by the way!

No, the AS-EQ1 is not in the signal chain in this graph. I had isolated the AVR Audyssey as the offender, given the flatter bass response I got with audyssey disabled, hence I wanted to measure just what audyssey did in the receiver.

And here are the before/after graphs from Sub EQ
http://dufduf.dk/images/subeq.tiff









Hope this clarifies...


----------



## Doug McBride

bac4822 said:


> Doug,
> 
> I printed out the original AS-EQ1 manual and have compared it to the new version, 1.2, and the only differences I found were the title page and a modification to the note on page 18. Did I miss anything?
> 
> I was going to email SVS technical support with this question, but am posting it here since a few others may have the same question. My receiver, a Yamaha RX-V659, equalizes the speakers, sets levels and distances on the speakers and sub, sets speaker sizes and crossover, but performs no sub equalization. In this situation, do I perform or skip the first step of integrating the AS-EQ1 with my receiver?


You sir, have a keen eye for detail (unless you used a diff program - that's cheating though!) Hope you enjoyed the read and yes, you are right. We gave an incorrect impression (although the intent was sincere) on how Dual Combined subs were EQed, hence the change in the manual. We also added that to the FAQ.

I'm not sure how low YPAO goes on your Yammie, but SubEQ and the AS-EQ1 actually go fairly high. What you see in the SubEQ graphs as the sub rolls off at higher frequencies is the bandpass filter in the sub kicking in to prevent the sub from playing too high (remember, your processor is not influencing the test signal at the point of SubEQ measurement so what you see is the Sub's behavior). In real life your processor's crossover will be set to a frequency lower than that, but I'd go ahead and do the AutoEQ Assist "just in case". If the Yammie is doing nothing in that frequency range then it can't hurt. If there's any overlap in the EQ frequencies however, you'll be covered and not inadvertently double EQing. It's actually pretty painless unless you've got MultEQ XT with a lot of positions to measure and even then, it's only time (unless you need a redo or two).

If you don't already, make sure you're OK with what the Yammie sets for speaker size and crossover and that it is what you want it to be. We've found a lot of speakers get set to Large by OEM setup routines if they have any capability at all and unless you're absolutely sure, should be set to Small with an appropriate crossover letting the subs handle the lower octaves.

Doug


----------



## Doug McBride

NainoKami said:


> Thank you for taking the time to look at this problem, by the way!
> 
> No, the AS-EQ1 is not in the signal chain in this graph. I had isolated the AVR Audyssey as the offender, given the flatter bass response I got with audyssey disabled, hence I wanted to measure just what audyssey did in the receiver.
> 
> And here are the before/after graphs from Sub EQ
> http://dufduf.dk/images/subeq.tiff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope this clarifies...


And the pink line in REW is with Denon Audyssey on, having been calibrated using the Auto EQ Assist feature of SubEQ? Almost seems reversed, except that the Denon probably couldn't do that well.

What smoothing is being applied in your REW graphs? The No AVR EQ (Blue) line is incredibly flat and both are very smooth don't you think? Looking at that Blue curve, I'd ask if you need any form of EQ at all unless you wanted a house curve.

On the other hand, if we look at the Before graph from SubEQ, that looks a little more like real life as opposed to the REW graph. I've done a couple of REW graphs in my environment before and after SubEQ and for the most part, they match pretty close to the SubEQ graphs. So i'm wondering why the difference?

In any case, just to be sure - the problem you have is that your system sounds much better after EQing with the AS-EQ1 and SubEq with Audyssey on your Denon disengaged, right?

Doug


----------



## bac4822

Thanks for the info, Doug.

I didn't cheat on the manual; just eyeballed it. I didn't want to print out the whole thing again since I'm low on ink.

Did some more checking and the Yammie only EQ's the center and surrounds to match the unequalized front speakers. However, it did corrections at 63 and 79 Hz for the surrounds so I'll take your advice when my AS-EQ1 arrives, hopefully some time next week. Since the receiver set the crossover at 90 Hz, I guess those corrections on the surrounds wouldn't take effect.

The Yammie seems to do a good job at all tasks except speaker size as you noted. I have SBS-01's for both front and surround speakers with an SCS-01 center. Bizarrely, the Yammie sets the fronts to large and the surrounds and center to small. I always reset all speakers to small as SVS suggests.


----------



## NainoKami

Doug McBride said:


> And the pink line in REW is with Denon Audyssey on, having been calibrated using the Auto EQ Assist feature of SubEQ? Almost seems reversed, except that the Denon probably couldn't do that well.
> 
> What smoothing is being applied in your REW graphs? The No AVR EQ (Blue) line is incredibly flat and both are very smooth don't you think? Looking at that Blue curve, I'd ask if you need any form of EQ at all unless you wanted a house curve.
> 
> On the other hand, if we look at the Before graph from SubEQ, that looks a little more like real life as opposed to the REW graph. I've done a couple of REW graphs in my environment before and after SubEQ and for the most part, they match pretty close to the SubEQ graphs. So i'm wondering why the difference?
> 
> In any case, just to be sure - the problem you have is that your system sounds much better after EQing with the AS-EQ1 and SubEq with Audyssey on your Denon disengaged, right?
> 
> Doug


Hi Doug,

I think you may have misunderstood. The measurements aren't acoustical, but electrical. There is no smoothing going on... The measurement is taken directly from the sub RCA output from the receiver. The graph represents what the AVR is sending to the Sub EQ.

This is my in room response. Both measurements taken with the Sub EQ enabled, but the blue trace is AVR EQ off, and the purple trace is AVR EQ on. It perfectly correlates with my electrical measurements (below about 50 Hz at least since I'm measuring full range). http://dufduf.dk/images/at-15-hz.tiff









But yes, my bass sounds better with AS-EQ1 on and the AVR Audyssey off... But what I don't understand is what is causing this. I don't understand why the Auto EQ assist hasn't worked.

Regards,
Simon


----------



## TRiSS

I reset the receiver, and strangely enough this time the Marantz did change the volume when 7.1 inputs were selected, and I could now also adjust the trim levels via the 7.1 trim menu (I then later put in the same trims in the "normal" speaker level menu, and verified that all is on the same level, and it is). 
I did the level matching step, and then took 6 measurements. I may have to redo the measurements on a quieter moment, and maybe take some more (some cars passing by and noisy people on the streets), but the difference is already very clear when I toggle the eq on or off. Bass is just much "fuller" and much more detailed with the EQ on.
Haven't done a direct comparison (yet) between the EQ1 and the filters I had on my BFD, but I have a feeling that in a way the EQ1 makes a more subtle change to the bass, but if you listen closely brings out much more detail in the end...

I hope to find the time this week to make some REW measurements, but my ears are already convinced :bigsmile:


----------



## Doug McBride

NainoKami said:


> Hi Doug,
> 
> I think you may have misunderstood. The measurements aren't acoustical, but electrical. There is no smoothing going on... The measurement is taken directly from the sub RCA output from the receiver. The graph represents what the AVR is sending to the Sub EQ.
> 
> This is my in room response. Both measurements taken with the Sub EQ enabled, but the blue trace is AVR EQ off, and the purple trace is AVR EQ on. It perfectly correlates with my electrical measurements (below about 50 Hz at least since I'm measuring full range). http://dufduf.dk/images/at-15-hz.tiff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But yes, my bass sounds better with AS-EQ1 on and the AVR Audyssey off... But what I don't understand is what is causing this. I don't understand why the Auto EQ assist hasn't worked.
> 
> Regards,
> Simon


Simon - thanks for the reminder. I did misunderstand and going back to your original post I see your reference (pure) to that.

When using AutoEQ Assist, do you ever hear tones from the subs? Typically you do not since they are intercepted by the AS-EQ1.

Have you graphed your Denon after having EQ'ed it with the AS-EQ1/SubEQ out of the loop? If so, how do they compare?

One thought that just came into my head. What if you set your Denon up to not have a Subwoofer then run the AutoEQ Assist and EQ your Subs using the AS-EQ1, then re-enable the Subwoofer after the calibration? I'm not sure, but if the Audyssey routine in your Denon does not see a Sub in the speaker configuration, it might not try to apply any EQ in the LF region. Of course it may then set your speakers to Large and try to EQ from that perspective so that might be something to watch for if you try this.

Another thought is what Audyssey Mode are you using on your Denon? Does it have a Flat mode and are you using that when you take your measurements? Theoretically, even if your getting LF EQ but it is flat, that's what we're trying to achieve with the AutoEQ Assist.

BTW, is your Crossover set to 70Hz for your mains?

Doug


----------



## NainoKami

Doug McBride said:


> Simon - thanks for the reminder. I did misunderstand and going back to your original post I see your reference (pure) to that.
> 
> When using AutoEQ Assist, do you ever hear tones from the subs? Typically you do not since they are intercepted by the AS-EQ1.
> 
> Have you graphed your Denon after having EQ'ed it with the AS-EQ1/SubEQ out of the loop? If so, how do they compare?
> 
> One thought that just came into my head. What if you set your Denon up to not have a Subwoofer then run the AutoEQ Assist and EQ your Subs using the AS-EQ1, then re-enable the Subwoofer after the calibration? I'm not sure, but if the Audyssey routine in your Denon does not see a Sub in the speaker configuration, it might not try to apply any EQ in the LF region. Of course it may then set your speakers to Large and try to EQ from that perspective so that might be something to watch for if you try this.
> 
> Another thought is what Audyssey Mode are you using on your Denon? Does it have a Flat mode and are you using that when you take your measurements? Theoretically, even if your getting LF EQ but it is flat, that's what we're trying to achieve with the AutoEQ Assist.
> 
> BTW, is your Crossover set to 70Hz for your mains?
> 
> Doug


Hi Doug,

No, I'm not hearing the sub ping during the AVR set up, but it detects the sub as it should. So it is sending the signal back to the AVR.

I thought of doing what you said about running audyssey with no sub connected, but I haven't as I read somewhere that audyssey doesn't let you do that. It simply wouldn't let you enable any audyssey modes if you changed your speaker config. But I may try this if all else fails.

Yes, I have used the audyssey flat mode for the measurements, but when I tried measuring with the normal audyssey mode (not audyssey flat), I got identical results... To my understanding this is how it should be, because the only differences between the two modes happen at higher frequencies (4 kHz and up).

I havent tried running the built in Audyssey without any addons for quite some time, as I was never satisfied to begin with, but I may try to do so tomorrow, while my girlfriend isn't home... 

About the crossover... I can see why you'd ask if it was set at 70 Hz given the null, but it's actually set at 80 Hz... My only answer to why I have that null is: Bad room... If change the distance setting of the subs, I usually just end up moving my null to a different frequency. My best theory is, that I have 'in phase' direct sound, and some 'out of phase' reflections.
I am moving soon, so that may help, though...


----------



## cavchameleon

TRiSS said:


> I reset the receiver, and strangely enough this time the Marantz did change the volume when 7.1 inputs were selected, and I could now also adjust the trim levels via the 7.1 trim menu (I then later put in the same trims in the "normal" speaker level menu, and verified that all is on the same level, and it is).
> I did the level matching step, and then took 6 measurements. I may have to redo the measurements on a quieter moment, and maybe take some more (some cars passing by and noisy people on the streets), but the difference is already very clear when I toggle the eq on or off. Bass is just much "fuller" and much more detailed with the EQ on.
> Haven't done a direct comparison (yet) between the EQ1 and the filters I had on my BFD, but I have a feeling that in a way the EQ1 makes a more subtle change to the bass, but if you listen closely brings out much more detail in the end...
> 
> I hope to find the time this week to make some REW measurements, but my ears are already convinced :bigsmile:


That'a great! Glad it worked out. The AS-EQ1 actually does a lot to the sound compared to the BFD, which only has very limited bands of correction. The AS-EQ1 uses hundreds of taps and also corrects in the time domain, which the BFD does not. That by itself is an amazing feat IMO which is why I like Audyssey a lot.

Ray


----------



## TRiSS

cavchameleon said:


> That'a great! Glad it worked out. The AS-EQ1 actually does a lot to the sound compared to the BFD, which only has very limited bands of correction. The AS-EQ1 uses hundreds of taps and also corrects in the time domain, which the BFD does not. That by itself is an amazing feat IMO which is why I like Audyssey a lot.
> 
> Ray


Hehe, I'm not saying it isn't doing a lot to the sound... I guess what I'm trying to say is that the improvement the EQ1 makes is so "natural", that toggling it on and off is noticable, but in a different way then toggling the BFD on/off is noticable (while also improving the bass, but in a less "natural" way). I'm not sure I'm making it any clearer here 

Despite the 7.1 no longer being a problem, I decided to go for the onkyo 876 anyway (upscaling, hdmi switching, builtin audyssey for the non-sub speakers, support for hidef audio formats, I read everywhere it is a lot of value for money). 
I'm slightly confused now though, is the "official" recommendation to run the AVR builtin audyssey without the EQ1 in the signal chain, and then calibrating the EQ1 "on top" of the builtin audyssey? I was under the impression auto-eq assist was supposed to take care of that? :dontknow:


----------



## cavchameleon

TRiSS said:


> Hehe, I'm not saying it isn't doing a lot to the sound... I guess what I'm trying to say is that the improvement the EQ1 makes is so "natural", that toggling it on and off is noticable, but in a different way then toggling the BFD on/off is noticable (while also improving the bass, but in a less "natural" way). I'm not sure I'm making it any clearer here
> 
> Despite the 7.1 no longer being a problem, I decided to go for the onkyo 876 anyway (upscaling, hdmi switching, builtin audyssey for the non-sub speakers, support for hidef audio formats, I read everywhere it is a lot of value for money).
> I'm slightly confused now though, is the "official" recommendation to run the AVR builtin audyssey without the EQ1 in the signal chain, and then calibrating the EQ1 "on top" of the builtin audyssey? I was under the impression auto-eq assist was supposed to take care of that? :dontknow:



Congrats on the Onkyo. You'll be happy with the upgrade!!!

As far as the AVR's built in Audyssey, yes you do need to calibrate it with the AS-EQ1 installed. The instructions are on page 15-16 of the newer version of the manual:

http://www.svsound.com/manuals/aseq_1_operatormanual_rev1_1_lowres.pdf

There is a by-pass connection that you connect the SVS unit to your receiver's mic input and you then connect the AVR's mic to the AS-EQ1. Run the AVR's auto cal, it will see a 'perfect' sub response and not create any filters/corrections for the sub. Then after you finish this step, you'll remove the AVR's mic and the pass-through cable. Run the leveling step. Then go on to the AS-EQ1 sub cal with the mic that came with the AS-EQ1. The final step will be to transfer the calculations to the SVS unit and to input the sub distance/level into AVR. 

Let us know how you like the final setup when you get your Onkyo. We should have a lot chiming in there soon as SVS is shipping out the units this week!!!

Ray


----------



## TRiSS

cavchameleon said:


> Congrats on the Onkyo. You'll be happy with the upgrade!!!
> 
> As far as the AVR's built in Audyssey, yes you do need to calibrate it with the AS-EQ1 installed. The instructions are on page 15-16 of the newer version of the manual:
> 
> http://www.svsound.com/manuals/aseq_1_operatormanual_rev1_1_lowres.pdf
> 
> There is a by-pass connection that you connect the SVS unit to your receiver's mic input and you then connect the AVR's mic to the AS-EQ1. Run the AVR's auto cal, it will see a 'perfect' sub response and not create any filters/corrections for the sub. Then after you finish this step, you'll remove the AVR's mic and the pass-through cable. Run the leveling step. Then go on to the AS-EQ1 sub cal with the mic that came with the AS-EQ1. The final step will be to transfer the calculations to the SVS unit and to input the sub distance/level into AVR.
> 
> Let us know how you like the final setup when you get your Onkyo. We should have a lot chiming in there soon as SVS is shipping out the units this week!!!
> 
> Ray


Thanks for the confirmation!
That's exactly how I thought it should be done, but the following quote confused me:



http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/svsound/16738-astounding-new-eq1-subeq-goes-sale-15.html#post185941 said:


> Just so you know Audyssey recommends NOT using the Auto-EQ Assist feature when you have an AVR or Pre/Pro with Audyssey capabilities (including 2EQ, MultEQ, MultEQ XT, etc.) in regards to the Sub Equalizer. I am not sure why Doug McBride posted that the SubEQ software states this but not to follow it. I am sure he has a perfectly good explanation.


----------



## NainoKami

Revelation! My AVR is nuts... This is for counsil, and doug, by the way! 

I wanted to try what counsil suggested, and run the AVR audyssey AFTER the AS-EQ1, and this is what happened: http://dufduf.dk/images/post-eq.tiff









The bluish, green trace (should've picked a better color), almost perfectly matches the purple trace, which is Ausyssey on, after EQ with Auto EQ Assist. That is, until we hit 60 Hz, where it starts to boost the signal a bit.

But we still have the roll off, from 40 Hz down.

I think my 4306 i broken, somehow...

Kind regards,
Simon Westenholz


----------



## counsil

TRiSS said:


> Thanks for the confirmation!
> That's exactly how I thought it should be done, but the following quote confused me:


I am sorry for confusing you.

I was only trying to re-assure NainoKami that running Audyssey on this AVR after calibrating his AS-EQ1 would probably yield decent results. He has to do this because his AVR has an old implementation of MultEQ that is not working well with the Auto EQ Assist functionality. This is why Chris from Audyssey recommended that he run Audyssey outside of, and after, the calibration of the AS-EQ1.

By the way, when I wrote "in regards to the Sub Equalizer", that is what I meant. The Sub Equalizer (installer flavor of the AS-EQ1), not the AS-EQ1 itself.

Also, when I wrote "SubEQ", I was referring to the software that is used to calibrate the AS-EQ1, not Sub Equalizer the hardware.

Hope this help clarify some things...


----------



## counsil

NainoKami said:


> Revelation! My AVR is nuts... This is for counsil, and doug, by the way!
> 
> I wanted to try what counsil suggested, and run the AVR audyssey AFTER the AS-EQ1, and this is what happened: http://dufduf.dk/images/post-eq.tiff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bluish, green trace (should've picked a better color), almost perfectly matches the purple trace, which is Ausyssey on, after EQ with Auto EQ Assist. That is, until we hit 60 Hz, where it starts to boost the signal a bit.
> 
> But we still have the roll off, from 40 Hz down.
> 
> I think my 4306 i broken, somehow...
> 
> Kind regards,
> Simon Westenholz


I had a feeling that this could happen. Would you post the before/after graphs that the AS-EQ1 produced (maybe you already have, I will look)? I have a feeling that there were some spots that the AS-EQ1 couldn't fully correct (for one reason or another) that the second run of Audyssey did correct (which probably shouldn't have, ie too much boosting).

Thanks for keeping us in the loop.


----------



## cavchameleon

TRiSS said:


> Thanks for the confirmation!
> That's exactly how I thought it should be done, but the following quote confused me:


Ahh, I see your concern. Not to worry, that statement is intended for the SubEqualizer (the pro version of sub correction by Audyssey) and not the AS-EQ1. It's a bit of a different machine and a pro-installer version only. Follow the instructions for the AS-EQ1 and you'll be just fine.

Ray


----------



## TRiSS

counsil said:


> I am sorry for confusing you.
> 
> I was only trying to re-assure NainoKami that running Audyssey on this AVR after calibrating his AS-EQ1 would probably yield decent results. He has to do this because his AVR has an old implementation of MultEQ that is not working well with the Auto EQ Assist functionality. This is why Chris from Audyssey recommended that he run Audyssey outside of, and after, the calibration of the AS-EQ1.
> 
> By the way, when I wrote "in regards to the Sub Equalizer", that is what I meant. The Sub Equalizer (installer flavor of the AS-EQ1), not the AS-EQ1 itself.
> 
> Also, when I wrote "SubEQ", I was referring to the software that is used to calibrate the AS-EQ1, not Sub Equalizer the hardware.
> 
> Hope this help clarify some things...





cavchameleon said:


> Ahh, I see your concern. Not to worry, that statement is intended for the SubEqualizer (the pro version of sub correction by Audyssey) and not the AS-EQ1. It's a bit of a different machine and a pro-installer version only. Follow the instructions for the AS-EQ1 and you'll be just fine.
> 
> Ray


Thanks all for the clarifications, it hadn't occurred to me that this was about the "other" device :dumbcrazy:
I'll keep in mind there are 2 in the family :R


----------



## counsil

NainoKami said:


> Revelation! My AVR is nuts... This is for counsil, and doug, by the way!
> 
> I wanted to try what counsil suggested, and run the AVR audyssey AFTER the AS-EQ1, and this is what happened: http://dufduf.dk/images/post-eq.tiff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bluish, green trace (should've picked a better color), almost perfectly matches the purple trace, which is Ausyssey on, after EQ with Auto EQ Assist. That is, until we hit 60 Hz, where it starts to boost the signal a bit.
> 
> But we still have the roll off, from 40 Hz down.
> 
> I think my 4306 i broken, somehow...
> 
> Kind regards,
> Simon Westenholz


Sorry, I got confused. Please ignore my previous post.

I think your AVR is nuts!

I don't see how you could have gotten these results.

I would have expected the green line to move up towards the blue line (below 40Hz) after running Audyssey after calibrating the AS-EQ1. Was the AS-EQ1 in place when you ran Audyssey?

For some reason, your AVR thinks this is 'flat', which it obviously isn't.

I would forward this on to Chris. This is totally weird.

Basically, it doesn't matter whether or not you use Auto EQ Assist when running Audyssey in your AVR. This is actually good news for fellow AS-EQ1 owners. This kinda proves that the problem isn't with Auto EQ Assist. It seems to me that this is a problem with your AVR or the Audyssey implementation inside it.

Keep us posted with what you find out.


----------



## counsil

NainoKami,

I would still like to see your before and after AS-EQ1 graphs.


----------



## NainoKami

Uhm... You mean my acoustical measurements, of before and after, or the electrical measurements? Or do you mean the before and after graph from SubEQ? My head is spinning... :dunno:


----------



## NainoKami

counsil said:


> Sorry, I got confused. Please ignore my previous post.
> 
> I think your AVR is nuts!
> 
> I don't see how you could have gotten these results.
> 
> I would have expected the green line to move up towards the blue line (below 40Hz) after running Audyssey after calibrating the AS-EQ1. Was the AS-EQ1 in place when you ran Audyssey?
> 
> For some reason, your AVR thinks this is 'flat', which it obviously isn't.
> 
> I would forward this on to Chris. This is totally weird.
> 
> Basically, it doesn't matter whether or not you use Auto EQ Assist when running Audyssey in your AVR. This is actually good news for fellow AS-EQ1 owners. This kinda proves that the problem isn't with Auto EQ Assist. It seems to me that this is a problem with your AVR or the Audyssey implementation inside it.
> 
> Keep us posted with what you find out.



Chris of Audsyssey just let me know that this is basically by design. It rolls off the bass to protect the system. I'll quote his email here, but I don't have his permission to quote him, so I may remove it, if he takes it ill. 

"There is a protective highpass filter being applied by the old version of MultEQ (this was done to prevent overexcursion). It results in a drop of 4 dB at 20 Hz. It gets much worse below 10 Hz of course, but there is really no content there to worry about. So, I don't think the AVR MultEQ is broken. I just think it's being limited by the method available at the time (3 years ago). Since then we have had improvements in the available DSP chips and have made changes to the algorithm to allow for protection without such a pronounced roll off."

I can't really say I agree with the reasoning behind this move. I'd say it was the subwoofers job to limit excursion, but never mind... This makes my decision easier... I want a new receiver! Now I just have to unload the receiver on someone less bass-mad, and get myself a AVR-4310. When I have the money of course! :crying:


----------



## counsil

NainoKami said:


> Chris of Audsyssey just let me know that this is basically by design. It rolls off the bass to protect the system. I'll quote his email here, but I don't have his permission to quote him, so I may remove it, if he takes it ill.
> 
> "There is a protective highpass filter being applied by the old version of MultEQ (this was done to prevent overexcursion). It results in a drop of 4 dB at 20 Hz. It gets much worse below 10 Hz of course, but there is really no content there to worry about. So, I don't think the AVR MultEQ is broken. I just think it's being limited by the method available at the time (3 years ago). Since then we have had improvements in the available DSP chips and have made changes to the algorithm to allow for protection without such a pronounced roll off."
> 
> I can't really say I agree with the reasoning behind this move. I'd say it was the subwoofers job to limit excursion, but never mind... This makes my decision easier... I want a new receiver! Now I just have to unload the receiver on someone less bass-mad, and get myself a AVR-4310. When I have the money of course! :crying:


That sucks! Enough said. :thumbsdown:


----------



## counsil

NainoKami said:


> Uhm... You mean my acoustical measurements, of before and after, or the electrical measurements? Or do you mean the before and after graph from SubEQ? My head is spinning... :dunno:


The graphs that SubEQ produced.


----------



## goonstopher

So just the old version? MultiEQ XT should be fine???


----------



## counsil

goonstopher said:


> So just the old version? MultiEQ XT should be fine???


That's my understanding.


----------



## cavchameleon

Counsil,

Do you have both the SubEQ and the AS-EQ1? Curious on your impressions of both and if you feel there is much of a difference between the two as far as SQ and options.

Ray


----------



## counsil

cavchameleon said:


> Counsil,
> 
> Do you have both the SubEQ and the AS-EQ1? Curious on your impressions of both and if you feel there is much of a difference between the two as far as SQ and options.
> 
> Ray


Nope, I only own the Sub Equalizer. Just in case you are wondering, I always fully type 'Sub Equalizer' because people easily confuse it with SubEQ (the software).

From my understanding, both are the basically the same hardware. The only difference it that the Sub Equalizer has a mini-XLR input so the Audyssey Installer Kit (Pro mic, MultEQ Pro, etc.) can be used.

MultEQ Pro allows the the user the ability to configure two zones in two different calibration sessions. The AS-EQ1 kinda allows this, too, but you have to use the 'dual discrete' method and calibrate both systems at the same time (I would guess that is why the manual states that the systems have to be in the same room).

MultEQ Pro also allows the user to save measurements so you can re-load (and add to) them at a later time. I have used this functionality several times.

I would have to look at the manual again, but that's about all of the differences between the two.

Now this is my personal opinion, but I would think that the Sub Equalizer should be a little better only in the sense that the Pro mic is calibrated to have a tolerance of +/- .5 whereas the AS-EQ1 mic is +/- 2. Most people wouldn't think that this is a big deal though.

Addition...

If you have an Audyssey installer-ready AVR (like my Denon 3808), you can change the target curve for any of the channels (individually if you like), including the subwoofer, when you calibrate it with the Audyssey Installer Kit. This is kinda cool because you can create a house curve if you want. So basically you calibrate the Sub Equalizer and it flattens your subwoofer. Then you calibrate the AVR and create the house curve on the sub channel. NOTE: I don't think Audyssey probably likes for Installers to do this, but the functionality is there.

I hope this answers your questions.


----------



## cavchameleon

counsil said:


> Nope, I only own the Sub Equalizer. Just in case you are wondering, I always fully type 'Sub Equalizer' because people easily confuse it with SubEQ (the software).
> 
> From my understanding, both are the basically the same hardware. The only difference it that the Sub Equalizer has a mini-XLR input so the Audyssey Installer Kit (Pro mic, MultEQ Pro, etc.) can be used.
> 
> MultEQ Pro allows the the user the ability to configure two zones in two different calibration sessions. The AS-EQ1 kinda allows this, too, but you have to use the 'dual discrete' method and calibrate both systems at the same time (I would guess that is why the manual states that the systems have to be in the same room).
> 
> MultEQ Pro also allows the user to save measurements so you can re-load (and add to) them at a later time. I have used this functionality several times.
> 
> I would have to look at the manual again, but that's about all of the differences between the two.
> 
> Now this is my personal opinion, but I would think that the Sub Equalizer should be a little better only in the sense that the Pro mic is calibrated to have a tolerance of +/- .5 whereas the AS-EQ1 mic is +/- 2. Most people wouldn't think that this is a big deal though.
> 
> Addition...
> 
> If you have an Audyssey installer-ready AVR (like my Denon 3808), you can change the target curve for any of the channels (individually if you like), including the subwoofer, when you calibrate it with the Audyssey Installer Kit. This is kinda cool because you can create a house curve if you want. So basically you calibrate the Sub Equalizer and it flattens your subwoofer. Then you calibrate the AVR and create the house curve on the sub channel. NOTE: I don't think Audyssey probably likes for Installers to do this, but the functionality is there.
> 
> I hope this answers your questions.


Thanks Counsil!

The fact that you can save measurements and re-load is actually a big deal for some people. The big plus like you said is the mic. I do have an installer ready AVR, but never used that option as I've been very happy with the built in MultEQ XT's results. I can't wait to infuse the AS-EQ1 into the system. 

I'll refer to the 'other' unit as the Sub Equalizer also from now on. I didn't think about the confusion some might have with the actual software, but that makes a lot of sense. If you do get the AS-EQ1, do a comparison if you have time. It would be nice to here some real world experiences in a house system.

Thanks,
Ray


----------



## cavchameleon

Looks like SVS is shipping out units tomorrow!:bigsmile:


----------



## counsil

Doug/Ed,

When calibrating the AS-EQ1 in 'dual discrete' mode, it is my understanding that two sets of sub trim levels and distances are given. One set for SubA and one set for SubB.

Does the AS-EQ1 also time align and level match the two subs internally when using the 'dual discrete' mode (like it does with 'one in two out')? IOW, are the resulting sub trim levels and distances the same?

Background...

I ask this because if someone has an AVR with only one sub trim level and distance, wouldn't they want to stay away from using 'dual discrete' since two 'different' sets of sub trim levels and distances will be given?


----------



## counsil

counsil said:


> Doug/Ed,
> 
> When calibrating the AS-EQ1 in 'dual discrete' mode, it is my understanding that two sets of sub trim levels and distances are given. One set for SubA and one set for SubB.
> 
> Does the AS-EQ1 also time align and level match the two subs internally when using the 'dual discrete' mode (like it does with 'one in two out')? IOW, are the resulting sub trim levels and distances the same?
> 
> Background...
> 
> I ask this because if someone has an AVR with only one sub trim level and distance, wouldn't they want to stay away from using 'dual discrete' since two 'different' sets of sub trim levels and distances will be given?


Nevermind. Chris from Audyssey gave me the answer...

Begin of quote...

Option 1: One in to Two Out.
The AS-EQ1 applies the delay and level corrections needed to align the two subs to each other. Then the two subs are seen as "one" by the AVR and a delay and level is applied in the AVR single subwoofer channel to align this virtual "single" sub with the satellite speakers.

Option 2: Dual Discrete.
This assumes that the AVR has the ability to apply individual delay and level settings to the two subs. There are very few models capable of this. The AS-EQ1 does not apply delay and level corrections to the two subs because you have just told it that your AVR will do that. In the Results page of the SubEQ software you will see the values that you have to manually enter in your AVR for each sub's distance and level.

...end of quote.


----------



## cavchameleon

counsil said:


> Nevermind. Chris from Audyssey gave me the answer...
> 
> Begin of quote...
> 
> Option 1: One in to Two Out.
> The AS-EQ1 applies the delay and level corrections needed to align the two subs to each other. Then the two subs are seen as "one" by the AVR and a delay and level is applied in the AVR single subwoofer channel to align this virtual "single" sub with the satellite speakers.
> 
> Option 2: Dual Discrete.
> This assumes that the AVR has the ability to apply individual delay and level settings to the two subs. There are very few models capable of this. The AS-EQ1 does not apply delay and level corrections to the two subs because you have just told it that your AVR will do that. In the Results page of the SubEQ software you will see the values that you have to manually enter in your AVR for each sub's distance and level.
> 
> ...end of quote.


Good info Counsil!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Option 1, even though the AS-EQ1 sets levels/delays with respect to each other, we still have to manually input the final combined level / delay into the AS-EQ1.


----------



## counsil

cavchameleon said:


> Good info Counsil!
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Option 1, even though the AS-EQ1 sets levels/delays with respect to each other, we still have to manually input the final combined level / delay into the AS-EQ1.


I think you meant to type "into the AVR" *NOT* "into the AS-EQ1"?

If so, that is correct. Using Option 1, the AS-EQ1 will time align and level match the subs, calibrate the two subs as "one", then provide you with a sub trim level and distance. These two numbers will need to be entered into your AVR manually by you.

From what I have gathered, Option 2 *should* only be used in the following two cases...
1. Your AVR allows you to individually enter sub trim levels and distances for multiple subs. *Only a few* AVRs exist that allow you to do this (per Chris).
2. Like the AS-EQ1 manuals states, if you have two systems (ie two AVRs) in the same room. I don't think would be the case for many people either.

I guess what I am trying to convey is that Option 2 (dual discrete) is not an SVS/Audyssey-approved method to have the AS-EQ1 individually EQ two subs (unless you fit into the above two 'special' cases).


----------



## goonstopher

cavchameleon said:


> Looks like SVS is shipping out units tomorrow!:bigsmile:


They said more recent orders should be out by the end of next week


----------



## cavchameleon

counsil said:


> I think you meant to type "into the AVR" *NOT* "into the AS-EQ1"?
> 
> If so, that is correct. Using Option 1, the AS-EQ1 will time align and level match the subs, calibrate the two subs as "one", then provide you with a sub trim level and distance. These two numbers will need to be entered into your AVR manually by you.
> 
> From what I have gathered, Option 2 *should* only be used in the following two cases...
> 1. Your AVR allows you to individually enter sub trim levels and distances for multiple subs. *Only a few* AVRs exist that allow you to do this (per Chris).
> 2. Like the AS-EQ1 manuals states, if you have two systems (ie two AVRs) in the same room. I don't think would be the case for many people either.
> 
> I guess what I am trying to convey is that Option 2 (dual discrete) is not an SVS/Audyssey-approved method to have the AS-EQ1 individually EQ two subs (unless you fit into the above two 'special' cases).



OOPS! Yes, you are correct - typo on my part. 

I agree with your use of Option 2, which will be probably very, very few out there.

Thanks,
Ray


----------



## Kal Rubinson

cavchameleon said:


> I agree with your use of Option 2, which will be probably very, very few out there.


It seems that the next generation of Onkyo/Integra prepros will qualify!


----------



## counsil

Kal Rubinson said:


> It seems that the next generation of Onkyo/Integra prepros will qualify!


I read something about that. Hmmmmm....


----------



## Kal Rubinson

counsil said:


> I read something about that. Hmmmmm....


Like this?
_You can connect the powered subwoofer with each jacks
respectively. Level and distance can be set individually
for each output.​_


----------



## counsil

Kal Rubinson said:


> Like this?
> _You can connect the powered subwoofer with each jacks
> respectively. Level and distance can be set individually
> for each output.​_


I remember reading that somewhere. But, that's not what I was thinking of. If I remember correctly, my local Denon dealer told me that the 4810 has two or three sub outs that can be calibrated individually. He had a demo unit on hand that I was going to try out, but I lost interest. Work has had me busy lately...


----------



## bac4822

Got a recipt for my AS-EQ1 yesterday, but no shipping notice. Since I live 80 miles from the SVS factory, the unit arrived today in perfect condition. Integrated the AS-EQ1 per the manual, but the values my receiver came up with were strange with the speakers averaging +8 and the sub at -8.5. Proceeded to level setting through the AS-EQ1 and all the speaker levels were on target, but the sub needed to be turned down from a little less than half way to a little more than a quarter. EQ'd 8 positions and the before and after bass frequency response showed great improvement. I then turned the unit on and off through the software, but there was no difference. Further investigation showed the sub was turned down way too low and when I turned it up, I ran out of headroom and the sub started humming. Started over again, but this time skipped the integration step since my receiver doesn't do any sub equalization. Insted of level matching with the AS-EQ1, I used my receiver's test tones and an RS analog meter. Measured the same 8 postions and the frequency response improved slightly versus the first EQ. This time, all values were in range and there was a big difference when I turned the unit on and off. Interestingly, my sub now has more slam than before and more definition. The low bass is now palpable. Since I run my sub level equal to my speakers, apparently flattening the peaks and reducing the dips improved the impact. So far, I'm happy.

My audio system:

Yamaha RX-V659
6 SVS SBS-01 speakers
SVS SCS-01 center channel speaker
SVS PB12-NSD subwoofer

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=15660&stc=1&d=1251953938


----------



## cavchameleon

Kal Rubinson said:


> Like this?
> _You can connect the powered subwoofer with each jacks
> respectively. Level and distance can be set individually
> for each output.​_


So, will new AVR's with this option negate units like the AS-EQ1? This would be interesting to see, but they may not have the resolution of the SVS unit. Curious...


----------



## cavchameleon

bac4822 said:


> Got a recipt for my AS-EQ1 yesterday, but no shipping notice. Since I live 80 miles from the SVS factory, the unit arrived today in perfect condition. Integrated the AS-EQ1 per the manual, but the values my receiver came up with were strange with the speakers averaging +8 and the sub at -8.5. Proceeded to level setting through the AS-EQ1 and all the speaker levels were on target, but the sub needed to be turned down from a little less than half way to a little more than a quarter. EQ'd 8 positions and the before and after bass frequency response showed great improvement. I then turned the unit on and off through the software, but there was no difference. Further investigation showed the sub was turned down way too low and when I turned it up, I ran out of headroom and the sub started humming. Started over again, but this time skipped the integration step since my receiver doesn't do any sub equalization. Insted of level matching with the AS-EQ1, I used my receiver's test tones and an RS analog meter. Measured the same 8 postions and the frequency response improved slightly versus the first EQ. This time, all values were in range and there was a big difference when I turned the unit on and off. Interestingly, my sub now has more slam than before and more definition. The low bass is now palpable. Since I run my sub level equal to my speakers, apparently flattening the peaks and reducing the dips improved the impact. So far, I'm happy.
> 
> My audio system:
> 
> Yamaha RX-V659
> 6 SVS SBS-01 speakers
> SVS SCS-01 center channel speaker
> SVS PB12-NSD subwoofer
> 
> Hi bac4822,
> 
> That seems strange on the levels. During the leveling step, did you adjust the level of the subwoofer on the sub itself to reach the 75db? Seems like once that's done, the sat's and sub should not be that far off from each other. You may want to give SVS a call - looks like your whole system is SVS based so they should be able to clue you in as to what is going on.
> 
> Glad you like the results!


----------



## counsil

cavchameleon said:


> So, will new AVR's with this option negate units like the AS-EQ1? This would be interesting to see, but they may not have the resolution of the SVS unit. Curious...


Someone (maybe is was me?) asked Chris (from Audyssey) this question a month or so ago. He basically stated that manufacturers have the option to implement this technology, but no one has taken the bait yet.

I agree with you, I don't see the resolution getting any higher though. I don't see the resolution of MultEQ XT getting any higher in any consumer product. Doing so might hinder the sales of Audyssey's pro equipment (i.e. Sound Equalizer, Sub Equalizer, etc.) and SVS's AS-EQ1.


----------



## bac4822

cavchameleon,

Yes, I did adjust the level on the subwoofer itself to achieve 75 dB. Prior to my posting, I emailed SVS Technical Support and Ed Mullen said I was OK skipping integration if I was sure my receiver doesn't EQ the sub. In fact, my receiver only EQ's the center and surrounds to match the unequalized front speakers. Although I'm happy with the results, I may try integration again when I have time, but will stop if I get the same kind of anamalous results.


----------



## Pocobear

Just got mine today and tried to set it up. Every thing went fine until I tried to view the results, said it couldn't find the file and then IE8 came up it was only part of the text and no graphs. All my programs are up to date Java, etc. Turned off firewall and virus/malware sanners, no difference. Looked in the Audessey directory and it hasn't created that directory and file in the directory it ask for.
Any thoughts? Sounds good so far with one sub, wanted to try 2 subs, but if I can't see the graphs I won't know if it's better to use 2 or 1 in my room.


----------



## Doug McBride

Pocobear said:


> Just got mine today and tried to set it up. Every thing went fine until I tried to view the results, said it couldn't find the file and then IE8 came up it was only part of the text and no graphs. All my programs are up to date Java, etc. Turned off firewall and virus/malware sanners, no difference. Looked in the Audessey directory and it hasn't created that directory and file in the directory it ask for.
> Any thoughts? Sounds good so far with one sub, wanted to try 2 subs, but if I can't see the graphs I won't know if it's better to use 2 or 1 in my room.


Running Vista? There's been an ongoing problem with some Vista 32 bit installations with this problem, but mostly on machines set up with non-US Locales.

See this post for more info:

http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...ng-new-eq1-subeq-goes-sale-16.html#post171319

I'm assuming you are in the US and have set your system to US Locale, but try this anyway and let us know what happens. There's a couple of other threads on this and as I recall, it required uninstalling SubEQ (using the unistall option when running Setup from the CD) , changing the Locale to US, rebooting, reinstalling SubEQ, and re-running to get the fix.

With regard to 1 or two subs, use two. Even if you can't get graphs at the moment, all experience has been the AS-EQ1 does a great job with multiple subs. Let your ears be your guide, not graphs.

Doug


----------



## Pocobear

Doug McBride said:


> Running Vista? There's been an ongoing problem with some Vista 32 bit installations with this problem, but mostly on machines set up with non-US Locales.
> 
> See this post for more info:
> 
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...ng-new-eq1-subeq-goes-sale-16.html#post171319
> 
> I'm assuming you are in the US and have set your system to US Locale, but try this anyway and let us know what happens. There's a couple of other threads on this and as I recall, it required uninstalling SubEQ (using the unistall option when running Setup from the CD) , changing the Locale to US, rebooting, reinstalling SubEQ, and re-running to get the fix.
> 
> With regard to 1 or two subs, use two. Even if you can't get graphs at the moment, all experience has been the AS-EQ1 does a great job with multiple subs. Let your ears be your guide, not graphs.
> 
> Doug


Thanks for the quick reply Doug, I am using Vista 32 and it is set to English American already. Sooo I loaded Sub EQ onto my XP SP3 laptop and it worked like a top. 

This time I used both subs, PB12ULTRA/2 and 16-46PC+ with upgraded TV12, and made 12 position measurements. Went from a -14db dip to approx -3.5db dip at 27hz and pulled down a +4db hump at approx 40hz to baseline. 

The PB12 is on the left wall one third (9') of the way out from the front wall, the PC+ is 13" from front wall and 30" from left wall. My only other good location for the PC+ would be on the right wall 9' from the front wall, across from the PB12. Do you think this would be a better spot?

Thanks Again!:yes:


----------



## Doug McBride

Pocobear said:


> Thanks for the quick reply Doug, I am using Vista 32 and it is set to English American already. Sooo I loaded Sub EQ onto my XP SP3 laptop and it worked like a top.
> 
> This time I used both subs, PB12ULTRA/2 and 16-46PC+ with upgraded TV12, and made 12 position measurements. Went from a -14db dip to approx -3.5db dip at 27hz and pulled down a +4db hump at approx 40hz to baseline.
> 
> The PB12 is on the left wall one third (9') of the way out from the front wall, the PC+ is 13" from front wall and 30" from left wall. My only other good location for the PC+ would be on the right wall 9' from the front wall, across from the PB12. Do you think this would be a better spot?
> 
> Thanks Again!:yes:


Glad you had a copy of XP. At this time that's still the best alternative until we get a new version of SubEQ. 

If your back will stand it, why not move the Ultra/2 (what a great box by the way!) to the other spot and do a quick re-measure to see. That's the beauty of SubEQ, especially once you've got your levels set. Just move the sub and re-measure. If the graphs look better, before saving the filters, try it out for a while. Don't forget to "Permanently Save your Results" however to make sure the filters take if you want to keep the latest run.

Enjoy,

Doug


----------



## goonstopher

Wait it doesn't work with vista??


----------



## Doug McBride

goonstopher said:


> Wait it doesn't work with vista??


Not with 64 bit Vista. Does work with 32 bit. See next post.

Doug


----------



## Doug McBride

Hi folks - glad to see some units are coming in and some good results are already starting to show.

For the moment as it states in the FAQ, platform support is limited to XP SP2 and above, and Vista 32 bit. If anyone has W7 32 bit installed and wants to give SubEQ a shot, please report back. 64 Bit is a non-starter. We've had one report of success running an XP instance under VMWare.  I also believe we've had a failure on trying to run SubEQ under the W7 XP emulator but if someone has it and wants to give it a shot, please do and let us know the results.

For the moment, since there are no upgrades available for the Software or Firmware for the AS-EQ1, there is no page on the SVSound site. There will be when the time comes. You'll also be receiving an email from us asking you to Opt-In to a push email distribution list so we can inform you of upcoming updates and how to get them. We were waiting to get all the boxes out the door before we got to that point.

If you want to download the CD Image of the SubEQ Installation CD, Manual, Release Notes, etc., here's the link. About 55MB. Note you can check SubEQ Installation on your box, but can't run the app past the first screen if SubEQ doesn't see the AS-EQ1 on the other end of a USB cable.

http://www.svsound.com/as-eq1/SVS_AS_EQ1_09_CDImage_MP3.zip

FAQ:

http://svsound.com/as-eq1/as-eq1_subeq_faq.pdf

Doug


----------



## snowmanick

NainoKami said:


> Chris of Audsyssey just let me know that this is basically by design. It rolls off the bass to protect the system. I'll quote his email here, but I don't have his permission to quote him, so I may remove it, if he takes it ill.
> 
> "There is a protective highpass filter being applied by the old version of MultEQ (this was done to prevent overexcursion). It results in a drop of 4 dB at 20 Hz. It gets much worse below 10 Hz of course, but there is really no content there to worry about. So, I don't think the AVR MultEQ is broken. I just think it's being limited by the method available at the time (3 years ago). Since then we have had improvements in the available DSP chips and have made changes to the algorithm to allow for protection without such a pronounced roll off."
> 
> I can't really say I agree with the reasoning behind this move. I'd say it was the subwoofers job to limit excursion, but never mind... This makes my decision easier... I want a new receiver! Now I just have to unload the receiver on someone less bass-mad, and get myself a AVR-4310. When I have the money of course! :crying:


That sucks! I have a 4306 as well and have had nothing but issues when running MultEQ. I've gotten around it now by using an Anti-Mode 8033 and applying the 25Hz boost after MultEQ to get a flat FR post correction. I have been hoping to go to the AS-EQ1 for a few reasons, one of the top being that I was hoping by the AS-EQ1 pinging back a perfect signal that I could get around the sub issues.

Based off of the reply from Chris, my plans will now have to account for a new AVR first. Such a shame as the 4306 is such a good AVR otherwise. :wits-end: Thanks for all the info/graphs and trouble shooting, as I have been tearing my hair out since 10/2005.


----------



## eugovector

Should we compile a list of AVR that are not plagued by this problem? Would we even be able to, perhaps with Chris' help?


----------



## BigPines

eugovector said:


> Should we compile a list of AVR that are not plagued by this problem? Would we even be able to, perhaps with Chris' help?


If I understand correctly, all MultEQ XT AVRs do not have this problem. I have the Onkyo TX-SR876 and based on REW measurements, I can tell you it does not have the problem.

Mike


----------



## NainoKami

BigPines said:


> If I understand correctly. All MultEQ XT AVRs do not have this problem. I have the Onkyo TX-SR876 and based on REW measurements, I can tell you it does not have the problem.
> 
> Mike


Just so you know, the AVR-4306 DOES have MultEQ XT, but it is the first version. I asked Chris what is being done now, to protect the speakers and he replied: "The new method detects the low frequency rolloff of the subwoofer and then applies a limit to the MultEQ filter so that it doesn't boost below that frequency. It does so by tapering the filter to no boost."

Simple enough really, but they didn't have the resolution to do that when they did the first implementation.
I'd suspect the AVR-3806 and others in that range have the same "issue".



snowmanick said:


> That sucks! I have a 4306 as well and have had nothing but issues when running MultEQ. I've gotten around it now by using an Anti-Mode 8033 and applying the 25Hz boost after MultEQ to get a flat FR post correction. I have been hoping to go to the AS-EQ1 for a few reasons, one of the top being that I was hoping by the AS-EQ1 pinging back a perfect signal that I could get around the sub issues.
> 
> Based off of the reply from Chris, my plans will now have to account for a new AVR first. Such a shame as the 4306 is such a good AVR otherwise. :wits-end: Thanks for all the info/graphs and trouble shooting, as I have been tearing my hair out since 10/2005.


You're welcome. And I agree totally! The 4306 is great, except for this issue... I am probably ending up with a 4310, but will wait till CEDIA is over and done with, before making my final decision!


/Simon


----------



## BigPines

NainoKami said:


> Just so you know, the AVR-4306 DOES have MultEQ XT, but it is the first version.


Bummer! That is what you get for being an early adopter right?  So I guess we need to know what the cutoff was. We could compile a list of AVRs as was suggested.

Mike


----------



## goonstopher

BigPines said:


> Bummer! That is what you get for being an early adopter right?  So I guess we need to know what the cutoff was. We could compile a list of AVRs as was suggested.
> 
> Mike


Personally I am ******** out... I was getting this device because I am an AV morron and needed something with very little learning curve or set up.


----------



## BigPines

goonstopher said:


> Personally I am ******** out... I was getting this device because I am an AV morron and needed something with very little learning curve or set up.


I understand your frustration. It sounds like you are going to have the problem with the AVR either with or without the AS-EQ1. The only solution that I can think of (other than getting a new AVR) is to put another EQ in between the AVR and AS-EQ1 to bring the level back up to where it is supposed to be. I realize that that is not an ideal situation for many different reasons. 

Mike


----------



## Doug McBride

BigPines said:


> I understand your frustration. It sounds like you are going to have the problem with the AVR either with or without the AS-EQ1. The only solution that I can think of (other than getting a new AVR) is to put another EQ in between the AVR and AS-EQ1 to bring the level back up to where it is supposed to be. I realize that that is not an ideal situation for many different reasons.
> 
> Mike


Another solution could be to disengage the Audyssey EQ in the AVR, although I'm not advocating this just to be able to use the AS-EQ1 effectively. This may not be satisfactory for all folks, however there are also a good number of users who don't use EQ for their speakers.

Doug


----------



## goonstopher

BigPines said:


> I understand your frustration. It sounds like you are going to have the problem with the AVR either with or without the AS-EQ1. The only solution that I can think of (other than getting a new AVR) is to put another EQ in between the AVR and AS-EQ1 to bring the level back up to where it is supposed to be. I realize that that is not an ideal situation for many different reasons.
> 
> Mike


I think you thought I was someone else... I never got the as-eq1 yet (on the way) I have an early onkyo 805 so it might be a problem.


----------



## bac4822

On 09/04/09, Doug asked for a guinea pig to test SubEQ on a Windows 7 32-bit system. I installed SubEQ on my Windows 7 32-bit partition without difficulty, turned the AS-EQ1 on and off, ran another complete setup, permanently saved the results and printed a certificate without encountering any difficulties.


----------



## BigPines

goonstopher said:


> I think you thought I was someone else... I never got the as-eq1 yet (on the way) I have an early onkyo 805 so it might be a problem.


Sorry, yes I got confused. I doubt you will have a problem with the 805. That was my prior AVR and I did not notice a roll-off on that unit. I hope you won't have a problem. Please let us know how it works out for you.

Mike


----------



## cavchameleon

bac4822 said:


> On 09/04/09, Doug asked for a guinea pig to test SubEQ on a Windows 7 32-bit system. I installed SubEQ on my Windows 7 32-bit partition without difficulty, turned the AS-EQ1 on and off, ran another complete setup, permanently saved the results and printed a certificate without encountering any difficulties.


That's great to know! Laptops are upgraded by may quite often and this is good news. Thanks for testing and letting us know.

Ray


----------



## Pocobear

I've had my AS-EQ1 unit setup now for a week now and I'm pleased as can be. My graph now show that it's flat (+/- 1db) from approx 15Hz to over 250Hz, and more importantly it sounds great. I learned that no matter what the graph says, if it doesn't sound right, then move something, sub or seating! Thanks Doug. I'm using a PB12 Ultra/2 (twin 12" in one box) and a 16-48 PC+. I started out with the PC+ in the left corner and the Ultra one third of the way out from the left front wall and tried several variations on that idea and always came up with a dip of about 4db at 27Hz. Doug suggested moving one to the other side of the room, so I rearranged some DVD/CD racks and moved the PC+ to the right front corner of the room. WHOA!! what a difference!!! Now it sometimes feels like my Clark Synthesis shakers are on when their not! AWESOME DUDE!

Remember, no matter what the graph says, if it doesn't sound right, MOVE sub or seating and try again, if that doesn't sound right try a second sub, borrow one if you have to, it's worth it!!


----------



## JimP

I just got mine in on Wednesday.

So far I've gotten it installed with a 1 sub installation and am looking forward to bring my second sub back into the room to try the two out method. 

I know you're not suppose to mix subs that are sealed vs ported (Velodyne HGS-15 and SVS-PB Ultra13), but it should at least be an interesting experiment to see what happens.


----------



## BigPines

JimP said:


> I just got mine in on Wednesday.
> 
> So far I've gotten it installed with a 1 sub installation and am looking forward to bring my second sub back into the room to try the two out method.
> 
> I know you're not suppose to mix subs that are sealed vs ported (Velodyne HGS-15 and SVS-PB Ultra13), but it should at least be an interesting experiment to see what happens.


I don't see anything wrong with mixing sealed and ported subs. As long as the placement is good, I think it is perfectly acceptable.

Mike


----------



## cavchameleon

BigPines said:


> I don't see anything wrong with mixing sealed and ported subs. As long as the placement is good, I think it is perfectly acceptable.
> 
> Mike


+1 
Especially if they have similar capabilities (extension/spl levels), which the two mentioned do.


----------



## cavchameleon

Pocobear said:


> I've had my AS-EQ1 unit setup now for a week now and I'm pleased as can be. My graph now show that it's flat (+/- 1db) from approx 15Hz to over 250Hz, and more importantly it sounds great. I learned that no matter what the graph says, if it doesn't sound right, then move something, sub or seating! Thanks Doug. I'm using a PB12 Ultra/2 (twin 12" in one box) and a 16-48 PC+. I started out with the PC+ in the left corner and the Ultra one third of the way out from the left front wall and tried several variations on that idea and always came up with a dip of about 4db at 27Hz. Doug suggested moving one to the other side of the room, so I rearranged some DVD/CD racks and moved the PC+ to the right front corner of the room. WHOA!! what a difference!!! Now it sometimes feels like my Clark Synthesis shakers are on when their not! AWESOME DUDE!
> 
> Remember, no matter what the graph says, if it doesn't sound right, MOVE sub or seating and try again, if that doesn't sound right try a second sub, borrow one if you have to, it's worth it!!


Good post! It's always important to keep in mind that placement (speakers / seating position) come first, if possible, acoustical treatments second, then electronic correction. Sometimes due to WAF, acoustical treatments are not an option, but placement usually is (not always, but most of the time). Even small subwoofer placement changes can have enormous affects on modes/nodes in a room.


----------



## eugovector

Keep in mind that the graph is not a true measurement, but an electronic estimation of room response. To see how your room is truly performing, you'll need to go the REW route.


----------



## Pocobear

If your worried about sealed vs. ported mix, then seal the PB13Ultra with all 3 ports plugged and give it a try. The EQ1 will smooth it out and they will both have the same characteristics. Also when your adding another sub each one only has to work approx half as hard for a given SPL and I believe that the larger the radiating surface the more realistic the sound .


----------



## JimP

Pocabear,

I wish it was that simple. 

Even trying to intergrate two idental subs that were manufactured months apart can be a nightmare. You can get pretty graphs alright, but then what does it sound like.


----------



## Doug McBride

Pocobear said:


> I've had my AS-EQ1 unit setup now for a week now and I'm pleased as can be. My graph now show that it's flat (+/- 1db) from approx 15Hz to over 250Hz, and more importantly it sounds great. I learned that no matter what the graph says, if it doesn't sound right, then move something, sub or seating! Thanks Doug. I'm using a PB12 Ultra/2 (twin 12" in one box) and a 16-48 PC+. I started out with the PC+ in the left corner and the Ultra one third of the way out from the left front wall and tried several variations on that idea and always came up with a dip of about 4db at 27Hz. Doug suggested moving one to the other side of the room, so I rearranged some DVD/CD racks and moved the PC+ to the right front corner of the room. WHOA!! what a difference!!! Now it sometimes feels like my Clark Synthesis shakers are on when their not! AWESOME DUDE!
> 
> Remember, no matter what the graph says, if it doesn't sound right, MOVE sub or seating and try again, if that doesn't sound right try a second sub, borrow one if you have to, it's worth it!!


Glad to be of help.

You have a PM.

Doug


----------



## drdoan

Just received my AS-EQ1. Here are the results. What the graph doesn't show is how much the rest of my system's sound improved! Now the Denon's Audyssey's corrections went to the other speakers, making them sound even better than ever! Thank you SVSound, and Audyssey!!! Dennis


----------



## Jon Liu

I must say, that is very impressive, Dennis! I contemplated getting an AS-EQ1 when I first heard it announced some time ago. It's certainly yielding fantastic results for nearly everyone.

SVS and Audyssey as individual companies have impressed me greatly in the last two years, but now having them joining up to make a great product really takes the cake. It seems they hit it out of the park with the AS-EQ1.


----------



## JimP

Dennis,

If you have the capacity of running REW, please post a graph of your after calibration frequency response.


----------



## eugovector

JimP said:


> Dennis,
> 
> If you have the capacity of running REW, please post a graph of your after calibration frequency response.


Yes, please do. Would love to see some real world graphs to temper the seemingly impossible flat predictions that the electronic graphs are giving.


----------



## TRiSS

I did some quick measurements with rew - sub only
green=eq off, red=eq on 

























also, for fun, some measurements with the sub out connected to the "mic in" of the soundcard:
blue = off, purple = on


----------



## Jon Liu

Hmm, there is a big arch between 70Hz and 45Hz even after correction.

The AS-EQ1 doesn't do anything about that? It boosts the dip between 35Hz and 25Hz a bit, though...


----------



## JimP

Would anyone like to take a stab at why the after response isn't flatter?


----------



## BigPines

JimP said:


> Would anyone like to take a stab at why the after response isn't flat?


I'll take a stab. The AS-EQ1 curve was averaged between multiple measuring positions while the REQ was taken at one particular position.

Mike


----------



## eugovector

and perfect real world response is just something that will never happen, but yet, we strive for it daily...


----------



## TRiSS

BigPines said:


> I'll take a stab. The AS-EQ1 curve was averaged between multiple measuring positions while the REQ was taken at one particular position.
> 
> Mike


sounds logical. It does sound better with it on, and I didn't really get any better results before doing it manually with a BFD.

I did have some weirdness with the trim levels though... I cran audyssey on my onkyo 876 with EQ assist, and that did seem to set my levels and distances correctly. It put the "autoeq assist sub level" at -7.
After running the as-eq1 setup, the distance seems correct, but the suggested trim level seems not: it suggests 1.9 dB, which is by ear and by meter about 4 db too hot: I use -2 dB... Always wondered how it calculates that suggested trim level, I guess it assumes a certain level at 0dB trim in the receiver?

Did anyone else have to divert from the suggested trim this much? Does it indicate a problem? I got about the same result with multiple runs...


----------



## cavchameleon

BigPines said:


> I'll take a stab. The AS-EQ1 curve was averaged between multiple measuring positions while the REQ was taken at one particular position.
> 
> Mike


Yep! To get a close response to the AS-EQ1, REW would have to be run with averaging all the exact same spots as you did when you ran the AS-EQ1. I'm not sure REW can average that many spot though, if one is using all possible 32 locations from the AS-EQ1.

Ray


----------



## cavchameleon

eugovector said:


> and perfect real world response is just something that will never happen, but yet, we strive for it daily...


Agreed! One would need a 'perfect' room (if that exists) and a perfect setup with perfect equipment (again, 'if that exists').

Ray


----------



## TRiSS

cavchameleon said:


> Agreed! One would need a 'perfect' room (if that exists) and a perfect setup with perfect equipment (again, 'if that exists').
> 
> Ray


And I can assure you my room is FAR from the perfect room  It's basically a bedroom already stuffed with cupboards and a desk, and some HTgear thrown onto that wherever i could get it to fit without falling over it


----------



## JimP

If you're trying to figure out what EQ1 is doing, couldn't you leave the mic in one spot and run 4 or 5 sweeps, then put the REW mic in that same spot and run one????


----------



## sub_crazy

+1

JimP makes a valid yet simple point.


----------



## drdoan

Because the Audyssey (both in my Denon Receiver, and the AS-EQ1) is adjusting both frequency and time domains, among other things, a straight response graph may not be an accurate representation of the sound as the listener hears it. As far as REW graphs, I would rather wait until I can get a better mic than my RC analog meter to measure with. I suspect the mike included in the AS-EQ1 is a better mike. 
All I can tell you is that although I liked my system before, I am blown away now! The bass is so clear, distinct, and, more even than before. I have watched a few bass heavy movies this weekend, and feel that the sound has significantly improved, not only in the bass, but in the other speakers. The clarity has noticeably improved. The AS-EQ1 should be required equipment for all bass heads!! Dennis


----------



## cavchameleon

I think it would be very difficult to get a close correlation with REW and the AS-EQ1 since they measure differently. The time domain issue as mentioned is a very big issue IMO (more important than the flattest Freq response. Also, if you do all 32 measurements with the AS-EQ1, one would have to do the same with REW in the exact same positions and then average then to compare the results to the AS-EQ1.

Received my unit, but have not had the time (with the house being to myself and alone) to have some fun with it yet. Hopefully this weekend :bigsmile:. 

Ray


----------



## JimP

Whatever you do, follow SVS's recommendation about checking out room placement first.

I found that sidewall placement helped out a lot for reducing a null, but I could hear the sub coming from that direction. I suppose getting a 2nd identical sub would eliminate the directional effect of the sub, but I don't really want to park another Ultra 13 in the room. They're kinda large.


----------



## eugovector

All good points.


----------



## Jason_Nolan

I'm ready to sell mine


----------



## Jason_Nolan

I have two subs, I've tried moving them all over the place and everytime I'm less satisfied then when they're not "equalized"

These two subs are an F113 and a Def tech trinity, neither a light sub to move. I'm more than a bit frustrated.

My last house (renting) sounded better with it, this one not so much. I thought it corrected time issues, there's times it completely cancels out bass notes that I've heard in certain songs in countless systems and you can't tell me they don't exist I'm hearing a peak because I've listened through headphones also. 

Not happy.


----------



## eugovector

Sorry to hear that Jason, but I'd venture there will be a fair number of people interested in picking up an EQ on a discount. If it were several months from now, I might be after it myself.


----------



## Jason_Nolan

I think I may be on to the cause. My center was set to small, but my receiver was setting the crossover frequency to 40 hz since it has a 10" sub. Once I set that to 80 hz it quit cancelling the frequency I was hearing.

Unfortunately, I have to redo all testing to see which was actually the best and which I was getting this problem with. I apologize to SVS, it was working fine, I wasn't though. Wow, that was stupid, I should've known better once I started hearing it. Too much going on.

I need to take a day and just get this done once and for all so I can be happy and catch up with my homework...


----------



## tonyvdb

Jason, you should also be aware that using two different subs will also cause issues. Do you have the subs located in different parts of the room or the same location?


----------



## Jason_Nolan

I actually have my front DEF TECH BP3000's running as front subs on A on a Y splitter and my Trinity and JL F113 running in the back off a Y splitter off of output B. 

I know people who haven't tried it will start saying run the fronts as small and then only use the two subs. I've already heard it from others. That's not the problem I was having and this set up works, even with three different types of subs all different sizes and different types (1 sealed, 2 ported, 1 passive reflex).

The fact is I knew it worked fine from my previous house. The problem I was having is the receiver (and usually it sets it to large) was setting my center to small for some reason and it was setting the X-over at 40hz. During certain frequencies played, my center was outputting some frequency between 40 and 80hz (upper sub limit) and cancelling it in my center seating position, making it sound horrible.

Maybe somebody has data to support the two different sub theory, but I can honestly say I believe it works just fine audibly. I haven't taken any REW graphs, but every time my four subs have always sounded better than just two used (one each off of A and B). My problem was they werent sounding as good as it was when I set a control without the SVS hooked up.

Like I stated, the center playing as a sub was the root of the evil and now that is solved I can start getting serious about which placement yields superior results over the others. I have a feeling I missed their are a couple really good combinations I've already heard, just ruined when the center sub came in to play.

Sorry for the long winded email.

I would like to know why two different subs are bad and what data you have to support this. Not just because someone said it was. Hearing what I've heard, I wouldn't take that as an answer, sorry.

And I would love two of the same subs, so if anyone wants to trade a Trinity and possibly some cash for an F113, let me know. We can make things happen. I like the smaller size of the F113.


----------



## tonyvdb

The problem with different subs is that if all of them do not have the same frequency response you will have to high an output where all the subs do have the range and the levels will be too low in the lower octaves. In order to compensate for this you end up with uneven frequency in the room and are actually loosing the lower frequency range below 20Hz. REW would most likely show this clearly. 
Also with multiple subs of different brands you run a high risk of cancellation due to phase problems and nulls.


----------



## sub_crazy

tonyvdb said:


> The problem with different subs is that if all of them do not have the same frequency response you will have to high an output where all the subs do have the range and the levels will be too low in the lower octaves. In order to compensate for this you end up with uneven frequency in the room and are actually loosing the lower frequency range below 20Hz. REW would most likely show this clearly.
> Also with multiple subs of different brands you run a high risk of cancellation due to phase problems and nulls.


Personally I think this is not true, I have run multiple subs from different MFG's for over 10 years and the only reason for them to sound bad is bad set-up.

What you should say is using high quality subs with poor quality subs could be a bad mix but multiple subs, even when from different brands, are more likely to be better than not.

With subs it is all about set-up, even if you are using 3 of the same subs phase and cancellation problems can still be an issue so it is not that they are different, just that they are not set-up properly.

A good point in this argument is using subs with killer extension to 15hz mixed with mid-bass subs which would compensate for the lack of mid-bass punch in a lot of VLF subs. These are 2 different sub systems but they excel at there given tasks.

It is not different manufacturers but instead mixing great subs with poor subs and Jason is running some excellent subs. If there is some cancellation or phase problems then it is just as likely to happen with the same subs as different subs IMO. The same subs do not cancel out poor set-up.


----------



## Jason_Nolan

I have to agree with Mike. Hearing is believing, and I've heard them sound well together.

I'd love to have two F113 for asthetics, but for sound my set up is definitely great.

My cancellations came from the center, not the four subs itself.


----------



## Jason_Nolan

I can agree with what Tony says more easily now. If two subs are on one channel, it would be easier for the software to derive a solution if they play the same and every subwoofer plays at a different characteristic. 

For now it sounds fine, eventually I'd like to have both F113's. Hopefully I can make a trade with someone who just wants one big sub or sell it and use the money to fund it. If anyone is interested in a Trinity, please let me know. Great sub, just not matching my F113.


----------



## markus76

Hello

Getting a smooth bass frequency response or a low spectral variance from multiple subwoofers is not as easy as one might think. It's not as simple as summing amplitude and phase. There is a static modal field and every subwoofer couples differently to these modes depending on its location. This leaves us with a lot of variables to optimize a single listening position or a listening area. A detailed discussion can be found here: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/download.cfm?ID=13680&name=harman

We still don't know how the Audyssey optimizer really works. Audyssey's Chris Kyriakakis explained that there are two basic modes of operation: "... You can treat each sub separately with an individual filter and then listen to them together. However, in our experiments we found that much better results are obtained if you first time and level align the subs and then ping them as "one" to create a single filter for the sum. ..."

In the light of Todd Welti's paper I can't see how Audyssey is able to produce an optimal result. Of course the result will be better than doing nothing but it doesn't result in the best optimization possible.

Furthermore I don't understand why Audyssey doesn't optimize the crossover region to the mains. We're still within a frequency region that is dominated by the room (100-200 Hz). The only thing that has changed is that there are now 5 to 7 additional low frequency sources (the woofers of your mains and surrounds) to the number of subwoofers.

Best, Markus


----------



## BigPines

markus76 said:


> Furthermore I don't understand why Audyssey doesn't optimize the crossover region to the mains. We're still within a frequency region that is dominated by the room (100-200 Hz). The only thing that has changed is that there are now 5 to 7 additional low frequency sources (the woofers of your mains and surrounds) to the number of subwoofers.


I agree that this would be ideal but to do this would require a single processor to handle EQ in all channels. The only way this would be possible is if the EQ was integrated in the AVR or standalone processor. Maybe some day we will get there but until then, this looks to be one of the best solutions available.

Mike


----------



## Kal Rubinson

One can optimize the crossover with AudysseyPro software and any compatible MultEQ product. Not only does the software permit target curve editing, it permits the user to experiment with crossover choices and see the results. Combining this with the AS-EQ1 or the Audyssey SubEQ is as close as we get in consumer products these days.


----------



## markus76

Kal Rubinson said:


> Combining this with the AS-EQ1 or the Audyssey SubEQ is as close as we get in consumer products these days.


http://www.gedlee.com/Summa.htm paragraph starting with "Geddes has now added the a 12" Sub. ..."

Best, Markus


----------



## BigPines

Kal Rubinson said:


> Combining this with the AS-EQ1 or the Audyssey SubEQ is as close as we get in consumer products these days.


+1

Mike


----------



## goonstopher

Besides Kal I have heard very very few (1 or 2) positive reviews, many more negative and several people already ready to send it back.

lost impact, less extension and set up issues seem to plague this product and I feel mislead into buying it.


----------



## Doug McBride

goonstopher said:


> Besides Kal I have heard very very few (1 or 2) positive reviews, many more negative and several people already ready to send it back.
> 
> lost impact, less extension and set up issues seem to plague this product and I feel mislead into buying it.


I'm going to have to beg to differ and ask you to reserve judgment until you've actually had a chance to use the unit. To the contrary, most reviews have been positive to glowing. The perceived loss of low end is a typically more a function of EQing due to the fact that in many cases there was a large amount of gain that was cut and that will be noticeable. This happens no matter how you EQ, AS-EQ1 or any other method. What also will be noticeable will be a lot of detail that was covered up by the peaks and bloat and this is what is pleasing people.

The bass can always be turned up, Dynamic EQ can be engaged if you have it, or downstream EQ can be added to put a house curve on top of the reasonably flat bass. It's all a matter of personal taste.

Please refrain from criticizing something you've only read about on the forums, and I'm suspecting in a pretty narrow range of end users. If you'd like to discuss the AS-EQ1 in more detail or have specific questions if you decide to set it up as opposed to returning it, send me an email at [email protected] and I can give you a call.

Doug


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Goonstopher has been on many of the threads on AVS that relate to the AS-EQ1 with similar statements as well as with many other questions about its application. It is interesting that he says that he actually has one and, although he has not yet used it, is considering returning it. I have yet to understand his "buyer's remorse."


----------



## Fatawan

tonyvdb said:


> The problem with different subs is that if all of them do not have the same frequency response you will have to high an output where all the subs do have the range and the levels will be too low in the lower octaves. In order to compensate for this you end up with uneven frequency in the room and are actually loosing the lower frequency range below 20Hz. REW would most likely show this clearly.
> Also with multiple subs of different brands you run a high risk of cancellation due to phase problems and nulls.


6 different subs, 3 different drivers, and an AS-EQ1


----------



## markus76

What do we see? All 6 subs in one graph? What's the frequency resolution (=window time) of the graph shown? Is there any smoothing applied? A vertical scale in 5 or 10 dB increments would be nice.

Best, Markus


----------



## Ed Mullen

Kal Rubinson said:


> Goonstopher has been on many of the threads on AVS that relate to the AS-EQ1 with similar statements as well as with many other questions about its application. It is interesting that he says that he actually has one and, although he has not yet used it, is considering returning it. I have yet to understand his "buyer's remorse."


Good call, Kal. SVS has had exactly one (1) AS-EQ1 returned, and that was from a customer using a MultEQ XT equipped AVR with a single subwoofer in a room which already had decent acoustics. The improvement from the AS-EQ1 in that particular situation was not sufficent to warrant the expense of the unit, and we completely understand, and have even stated this ourselves. Other than that, consumer and professional reception alike has been overwhelmingly positive. 

The AS-EQ1 does not have any dynamic limiters or high pass filters, and does not reduce impact or lessen deep extension. If there is a high pass filter present in the signal chain, it will recognize same and EQ to the corner frequency of the filter and then allow the native filter roll-off to occur. 

To the extent flattening peaks and eliminating excessive room gain results in a more balanced and accurate sounding bass, the user should give his ears time to acclimate rather than dismissing the new sound out-of-hand as lost impact. It's all a matter of perspective - one user says "I lost slam and impact" and another user says "I eliminated bottom-heavy bloat and it sounds much more balanced". Same objective results, two different subjective impressions. 

And as Doug correctly states, the subwoofer channel can still be run hotter than flat/level if the user prefers, and Dynamic EQ will still also work the same, boosting the low-end on a volume-based sliding scale to compensate for FM.


----------



## Fatawan

markus76 said:


> What do we see? All 6 subs in one graph? What's the frequency resolution (=window time) of the graph shown? Is there any smoothing applied? A vertical scale in 5 or 10 dB increments would be nice.
> 
> Best, Markus


Yes, all 6 subs in one graph, with Sub A consisting of two subs in front of the room, and Sub B is a stack of 4 subs shooting through the wall in the back of the room. No smoothing. I'm not sure I know what you mean by window time??? It was a 21 second sweep from 6-120Hz. My Crown amps roll off below 8Hz.

By the way, I am one who has always had trouble with MultiEQ setting levels too low(that infamous "loss of impact"). I would always have to turn up the level by 10db to suit my tastes. The AS-EQ1 had the same issue--I ended up 10db higher than the suggested level. Now I have fantastic bass quality at a very enjoyable level.


----------



## counsil

Fatawan said:


> Yes, all 6 subs in one graph, with Sub A consisting of two subs in front of the room, and Sub B is a stack of 4 subs shooting through the wall in the back of the room. No smoothing. I'm not sure I know what you mean by window time??? It was a 21 second sweep from 6-120Hz. My Crown amps roll off below 8Hz.
> 
> By the way, I am one who has always had trouble with MultiEQ setting levels too low(that infamous "loss of impact"). I would always have to turn up the level by 10db to suit my tastes. The AS-EQ1 had the same issue--I ended up 10db higher than the suggested level. Now I have fantastic bass quality at a very enjoyable level.


I can't view photobucket pics here at work. What subs do you have?


----------



## markus76

Fatawan,

you have them running in parallel? "Window time" is the length of the impulse response window that is used to calculate the frequency response graph. For in-room measurements it should be 0.5 to 1 s.

Best, Markus


----------



## Fatawan

counsil said:


> I can't view photobucket pics here at work. What subs do you have?


Sub A is split to a 15" LMS sealed sub and a dual opposed 18" Maelstrom-X sub, and Sub B is 4 15" Rythmiks in a master/slave arrangement.


----------



## Fatawan

markus76 said:


> Fatawan,
> 
> you have them running in parallel? "Window time" is the length of the impulse response window that is used to calculate the frequency response graph. For in-room measurements it should be 0.5 to 1 s.
> 
> Best, Markus


I don't have my laptop with me at the moment to check that--I will get back to you.


----------



## tonyvdb

goonstopher said:


> Besides Kal I have heard very very few (1 or 2) positive reviews, many more negative and several people already ready to send it back.
> 
> lost impact, less extension and set up issues seem to plague this product and I feel mislead into buying it.


I would love to know where you are reading this goonstopher? All the reviews I have read have been very positive and any that have not are almost always user error in setting up the AS-EQ1.


----------



## goonstopher

Ed Mullen said:


> Good call, Kal. SVS has had exactly one (1) AS-EQ1 returned, and that was from a customer using a MultEQ XT equipped AVR with a single subwoofer in a room which already had decent acoustics. The improvement from the AS-EQ1 in that particular situation was not sufficent to warrant the expense of the unit, and we completely understand, and have even stated this ourselves. Other than that, consumer and professional reception alike has been overwhelmingly positive.
> 
> The AS-EQ1 does not have any dynamic limiters or high pass filters, and does not reduce impact or lessen deep extension. If there is a high pass filter present in the signal chain, it will recognize same and EQ to the corner frequency of the filter and then allow the native filter roll-off to occur.
> 
> To the extent flattening peaks and eliminating excessive room gain results in a more balanced and accurate sounding bass, the user should give his ears time to acclimate rather than dismissing the new sound out-of-hand as lost impact. It's all a matter of perspective - one user says "I lost slam and impact" and another user says "I eliminated bottom-heavy bloat and it sounds much more balanced". Same objective results, two different subjective impressions.
> 
> And as Doug correctly states, the subwoofer channel can still be run hotter than flat/level if the user prefers, and Dynamic EQ will still also work the same, boosting the low-end on a volume-based sliding scale to compensate for FM.


I've had 2 people tell me in private that they planned to return it and ask to not be identified. The AVS thread is not nearly as glowing if you go back a few pages. One meber talks about his calibration disk cutting off a good 10 seconds earlier in the sweep and several others complain about less impact no matter the gain level.

My questioning is because spending tens of hours reading a manual and installing a product i feel mislead into buying is a tough pill to swallow. I will do it but I am sick of having to back down to the powers that be on this stuff and see other members feeling the same and feeling forced to say things in private out of fear or reprieve on the board.


----------



## Ed Mullen

goonstopher said:


> I've had 2 people tell me in private that they planned to return it and ask to not be identified. The AVS thread is not nearly as glowing if you go back a few pages. One meber talks about his calibration disk cutting off a good 10 seconds earlier in the sweep and several others complain about less impact no matter the gain level.
> 
> My questioning is because spending tens of hours reading a manual and installing a product i feel mislead into buying is a tough pill to swallow. I will do it but I am sick of having to back down to the powers that be on this stuff and see other members feeling the same and feeling forced to say things in private out of fear or reprieve on the board.


You've _got_ to be kidding me. 

SVS isn't forcing or misleading anyone to purchase AS-EQ1s, nor are we (or the moderators for that matter) suppressing any negative comments about the AS-EQ1. In fact we've been extremely responsive in answering questions and criticisms head-on, both publicly and privately in sales and tech support. Audyssey and SVS have been in continuous improvement mode since the AS-EQ1 was launched, working on both firmware and software upgrades to make a good product even better. And all AS-EQ1 owners will benefit from these improvements as they are rolled out on our website server. 

As for your bitter pill (and the ones you purport other forum members are supposedly swallowing), SVS offers a no-questions-asked 45-day in-home-trial period - one of the longest (if not the longest) in the industry. If you don't like the product, then don't keep it - all you risk is shipping and we make that clear on our website. In your particular case, I don't care how long you've owned the AS-EQ1 - I'll extend your return period and take it back and refund your purchase price. In fact, I'll even eat return shipping. 

The last thing anyone at SVS wants is a customer who feels deceived, mislead, or bitter about a purchase - that business model is not sustainable. Customer satisfaction is our ultimate goal, and usually we can achieve that with strong tech support. But sometimes (rarely) the only way to satisfy a customer is to return the product and refund the purchase. We know that no product can be all things to all people, and it looks like the AS-EQ1 just isn't your cup of tea. That's perfectly fine - give us a shout in Sales or Tech Support and request a return and we'll handle the rest - RMA paperwork, shipping label, return shipping expense, credit card refund - everything.


----------



## tonyvdb

Ed Mullen said:


> SVS offers a no-questions-asked 45-day in-home-trial period - one of the longest (if not the longest) in the industry. If you don't like the product, then don't keep it - all you risk is shipping and we make that clear on our website. In your particular case, I don't care how long you've owned the AS-EQ1 - I'll extend your return period and take it back and refund your purchase price. In fact, I'll even eat return shipping.


There you have it, It does not get better than that! Its rare to find customer service like this anywhere. 
I still don't get why goonstopher is so negative as he has not even tried his AS-EQ1 yet? There is nothing better on the market for the price.


----------



## sub_crazy

I don't own the AS-EQ1 as I have DIY subs and knew it would be hard to implement in my current situation. I did not know this at first but the SVS customer service answered my questions quickly and honestly.

With that said if I did have a workable situation I would have no problem taking the AS-EQ1 for a test drive. I know from past experience that SVS has some of the best customer service of any company I have ever dealt. If I did not like it I would not be afraid to first let SVS know. If for any reason there help was not acceptable then why would I be afraid to let forum members know? 
This is a $700 pre-order item so anyone spending this amount would be foolish to not voice there opinion on a forum.

SVS customer service are actually the ones who explained to me why the AS-EQ1 may not work for my DIY situation. Most other company's would have tried to convince to try and keep my order in place in hopes I would not send it back.

Many products get bashed on forums so you assertion that people are afraid to voice there opinion due to backlash makes no sense. 

I guess I have as much right to comment on the AS-EQ1 as you do goon since I have not tried it as well. I will refrain from doing so though as I only comment on the sound quality of items I have listened to. I will comment on the service I have received from SVS though as I have personal experience with it and by far they are the best CE company I have dealt with.

If you have the AS-EQ1 just give it a try or just send it back, to bash them for what others have supposedly said makes no sense.


----------



## Jon Liu

I cannot express how incredible SVS's customer service is. Any issues that me or anyone I am associated with has been taken care of to 100% satisfaction! Mr. Ed Mullen, Tom Vodhanel, Ron Stimpson, and the rest of the SVS crew really will take care of you, ESPECIALLY if you are not happy with their product!


----------



## ccdoggy

I am curious if the mic that comes with the as-eq1 has a calibration file for it for use with RoomEQ, anywhere online. I dont really have any other mic other then my radio shack SPL meter and figure if i can use the included one to measure my room and the differences it might be better then the RS SPL meter.

just a thought for when i finally get mine.


----------



## goonstopher

sub_crazy said:


> I don't own the AS-EQ1 as I have DIY subs and knew it would be hard to implement in my current situation. I did not know this at first but the SVS customer service answered my questions quickly and honestly.
> 
> With that said if I did have a workable situation I would have no problem taking the AS-EQ1 for a test drive. I know from past experience that SVS has some of the best customer service of any company I have ever dealt. If I did not like it I would not be afraid to first let SVS know. If for any reason there help was not acceptable then why would I be afraid to let forum members know?
> This is a $700 pre-order item so anyone spending this amount would be foolish to not voice there opinion on a forum.
> 
> SVS customer service are actually the ones who explained to me why the AS-EQ1 may not work for my DIY situation. Most other company's would have tried to convince to try and keep my order in place in hopes I would not send it back.
> 
> Many products get bashed on forums so you assertion that people are afraid to voice there opinion due to backlash makes no sense.
> 
> I guess I have as much right to comment on the AS-EQ1 as you do goon since I have not tried it as well. I will refrain from doing so though as I only comment on the sound quality of items I have listened to. I will comment on the service I have received from SVS though as I have personal experience with it and by far they are the best CE company I have dealt with.
> 
> If you have the AS-EQ1 just give it a try or just send it back, *to bash them for what others have supposedly said makes no sense*.


Read the AVS thread, all it is is people confused on how to use it and trying to fix the loss of bass impact... The customer service there is fine but really the $700 pre-order was a fraud (is the price even $800 yet?) and the eq of 2 subs was never really clearly explained. All they need to do is fix the instructions on how to implement the level matching and imclude a house curve option in the next firmware update. It's not really that complicated but it annoys me.


----------



## eugovector

Goonstopher: Will you be returning your unit then?


----------



## Kal Rubinson

eugovector said:


> Goonstopher: Will you be returning your unit then?


He'd like to but he isn't certain of the process. I understand that some people have had problems with UPS and FEDEX.


----------



## JimP

....and some people would rather belittle someone than respect their opinion.


----------



## tonyvdb

goonstopher said:


> Read the AVS thread, all it is is people confused on how to use it and trying to fix the loss of bass impact... The customer service there is fine but really the $700 pre-order was a fraud (is the price even $800 yet?) and the eq of 2 subs was never really clearly explained. All they need to do is fix the instructions on how to implement the level matching and imclude a house curve option in the next firmware update. It's not really that complicated but it annoys me.


goonstopher, I think you need to try yours first before passing judgment. How can you go by what others have said and make statements like you have without even trying one yourself.
If I had gone by some of the negative reviews on the Onkyo 805 I would have never gotten one and boy am I glad I went by the positive reviews as I cant say enough good things about it now that I have it.


----------



## bpape

Doesn't really matter. If you get that with no treatment, only positioning and a bit of parametric EQ, you're well on your way to a great room.

Bryan


----------



## goonstopher

JimP said:


> ....and some people would rather belittle someone than respect their opinion.


Jim mob mentality WILL win out on this product. Anyone who disagrees is a gadfly and nothing more than a passing hum in the ear of the machine. 

If my concerns with the product weren't enough then the continued cult like persistence of its followers is more than enough to make me question every single word said in every review and thread. What can be believe and how many people would like to say something but don't want to be subject to attack? We will never know.


----------



## eugovector

So, that's a "yes" on returning it?


----------



## markus76

Fatawan said:


> I don't have my laptop with me at the moment to check that--I will get back to you.


Any news on that?

Thanks, Markus


----------



## BigPines

goonstopher said:


> Jim mob mentality WILL win out on this product. Anyone who disagrees is a gadfly and nothing more than a passing hum in the ear of the machine.
> 
> If my concerns with the product weren't enough then the continued cult like persistence of its followers is more than enough to make me question every single word said in every review and thread. What can be believe and how many people would like to say something but don't want to be subject to attack? We will never know.


Sorry but this is just silly to me. Give us some concrete practical experience with the unit where it failed to meet your expectations. No one is suppressing your opinion. So let's hear it. I don't see a mob.

Mike


----------



## Fatawan

markus76 said:


> Any news on that?
> 
> Thanks, Markus


I assume I am using the defaults--under the "Impulse Response Windows" tab it says 

Left Tukey 0.25
Right Tukey 0.25

Left Window(ms) 167
Windows Ref Time(ms) 0
Right Window(ms) 500
Frequency Resolution 1.50 Hz


So what does all that mean??


----------



## markus76

The length of the impulse window (in REW Right Window-Left Window) defines how good the frequency graph's frequency resolution will be. At the same time we capture more room sound. That's not a problem with lower frequencies because we want to look at a steady state response which requires a longer window.
If the window is too short, you only get a few data points. You won't see dips and peaks you hear. Below 100 Hz we should aim for a frequency resolution of 1 Hz to see what's going on.

You applied a time window of 333 Hz (500-167) which results in a frequency resolution of 3 Hz. You should adjust "right window" to 1000 ms.
Looks like REW's resolution calculation is wrong?

Best, Markus


----------



## drdoan

As I posted earlier, my AS-EQ1 leveled out my bass perfectly. I did add a little extra volume (about +3 db) as that is my preference. The difference in impact and CLARITY is quite amazing. Now my bass sounds much more like the THX Digital theater I attend (Moore Warren Theater). The peaks in the bass are, IMHO, one of the main reasons for "muddy" and loss of tonality in subs. When you can hear that note with definition, it is really fun! Dennis


----------



## Pocobear

drdoan said:


> As I posted earlier, my AS-EQ1 leveled out my bass perfectly. I did add a little extra volume (about +3 db) as that is my preference. The difference in impact and CLARITY is quite amazing. Now my bass sounds much more like the THX Digital theater I attend (Moore Warren Theater). The peaks in the bass are, IMHO, one of the main reasons for "muddy" and loss of tonality in subs. When you can hear that note with definition, it is really fun! Dennis


DRDONE, \Keep in mind that the relative differences between the EQ1 mic and the AVR mic could be off from each other by and average of 3db or more, I have one, out of six, cal mics that is running 8db hot relative to the EQ1 cal mic. That's why its best to recheck with an SPL meter after running SubEQ and MulitEQ. If you don't have a SPL meter, you can run the SubEQ level setup for the Sat and Sub with the EQ1 mic and set them to 75db, then substitute your AVR mic for the EQ1 mic, and note the differences between the two readings, and use the difference as and offset. Otherwise, just go with your ears and what you like! That's what it's all about anyway!


----------



## Dwight Angus

I have just installed the AS-EQ1 and 2 X Pb13's. Previously I had owned 2 X paradigm PW 2100's that sounded very boomy and difficult to distinguish different tones (1 note bass). The difference to my ear is amazing. Bass clarity has improved alot. I can now easily distinguish different bass tones without the muddy backdrop and I get much better impact. I still want to tweak sub positioning a bit to maximize bass response. But already without alot of time spent on setup the bass response has never sounded as good. I listened to the subs without the EQ and it became obvious very quickly the bass quality was not as good. For me the AS-EQ1 is a huge plus.


----------



## Jason_Nolan

I accidently posted a negative comment that I fealt bad about afterwards. I should have tested all options and my set up before posting.

I haven't had to use any experience from SVS, but I know they're available if I need them, which is nice. 

I'm happy with what the SVS AS-EQ1 does in my current new house, only my decay times are horrible as it's on a slab and the walls are bare. I know that's not something the SVS can fix and new that going in. Also, I can tell a difference in having the JL F113 and Trinity on the same channel, but for now it will work until I get matching F113's. Set up and using it was cake, I barely read through the instructions.

When I do use it, I loose all the boost (room gain) in the 20-40hz range, which I do enjoy sometimes, but I can easily turn it off if I want that sloppy big lower end for movies or Hip hop, etc.

I'd say that this is a great addition if you give it time to adjust. 

I would like to see some options like allowing a house curve, or Dynamic EQ with adjustability as a software update. I would also like to know if these are going to be a cost to owners to download.

My only gripe from buying it and owning it is that SVS didn't just go ahead and thrown their 3 foot sub cable in to go from receiver to the AS-EQ1. For the price, that shouldn't have been an option and should have been included. I guess I just have to complain about something.

I'm a bit surprised you're complaining before trying it though.


----------



## Jason_Nolan

Sorry, my house isn't a slab, it's on a crawl space. Hopefully this makes more sense.


----------



## Jason_Nolan

FINALLY!!! 

I can say I'm now happy with how my subs (all four of them) play together.

My final positioning that played the best was putting the JL F113 to the outside of the Front left BP3000TL and the Trinity to the outside of the right BP3000TL. 

Now I just need to clean up the mess of wires...

SVS works great, sometimes you just need to experiment in some rooms.

I encourage anyone to try it, not just once, but move your subs until you're happy with them and you will get results you like.


----------



## recruit

Setup and placement of the speakers is always the most important part and EQ can just add the finishing touches to what would already be a great sound, Audyssey is IMO easily the best solution for EQ, SVS really have brought a product which can do wonders for any subs and not just SVS made ones, I may well end up getting the EQ1 if my AV888 does not satisfy my needs for EQ on the sub...


----------



## jpk

cavchameleon said:


> Received my unit, but have not had the time (with the house being to myself and alone) to have some fun with it yet. Hopefully this weekend :bigsmile:.
> 
> Ray


Hi Ray,

I'm curious, did you get your EQ-1 up and going?

Joe


----------



## Patrick Nevin

I was just playing an 80hz and 20hz sine waves and the 80hz wave is louder than the 20hz wave. Dose that mean it is a flat response?


----------



## recruit

Patrick Nevin said:


> I was just playing an 80hz and 20hz sine waves and the 80hz wave is louder than the 20hz wave. Dose that mean it is a flat response?


No, it does not, 80hz is audible but with 20hz you will feel it more than hearing it...have you tried calculating the response in your room to see what it looks like?


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Patrick Nevin said:


> I was just playing an 80hz and 20hz sine waves and the 80hz wave is louder than the 20hz wave.


 If they were at the identical level of measured output (with SPL meter), this is normal since our ears are considerably less sensitive at 20Hz than at 80Hz. 




> Dose that mean it is a flat response?


It doesn't preclude that but you need to measure to know.


----------



## Patrick Nevin

I do have a just about a flat response. there is a dip between 22-29 hz area. but it is level at 20hz I did use a spl meter to check the sine wave levels.


----------



## Pocobear

Has anyone heard when the next shipments of EQ1's are due to ship out to customers?:foottap:


----------



## recruit

Pocobear said:


> Has anyone heard when the next shipments of EQ1's are due to ship out to customers?:foottap:


I never knew there was a shortage of EQ1's, they must be extremely popular if people are still pre-ordering...


----------



## ccdoggy

recruit said:


> I never new there was a shortage of EQ1's, they must be extremely popular if people are still pre-ordering...


they are totally out and have been for a while now. I won the contest on this site for one and am in the process of waiting for the next shipment to arrive before i can get mine. Seemingly very long and tireless waiting game.

Been holding off on a few movies so i can watch them with the EQ all setup and doin its thing.


----------



## ccdoggy

Pocobear said:


> Has anyone heard when the next shipments of EQ1's are due to ship out to customers?:foottap:


I guess early/mid november. thats what i was whispered when i asked.


----------



## Jason_Nolan

One thing I would like to see SVS fix with a firmware update is the constant turn on thump you get through your subs when turning on your system. 

Why is this necessary and even some of the cheapest gear has eliminated this problem for a while.

Am I the only one with this issue?


----------



## recruit

can you not turn the EQ1 on before the sub and then that will eliminate the thump noise that you get?


----------



## Jason_Nolan

I have it connected to my receiver. The unit is on and comes on when the receiver is turned on and turned off when the receiver is turned off. Best that I don't have to leave it on all the time and I don't have to manually walk over to it and power it on everytime. 

I figured this would be the only logical way to install it. Nobody else hooked it up this way?

It's not like the turn on thump is huge, but it's still annoying and I always heard that was bad for subs (maybe I'm wrong)? 

Not a huge concern, but it still should be fixed for the money it costs.


----------



## recruit

I am not sure how easy it is to supress the out going signal on EQ type devices, I have heard the Antimode does this aswell, and IIRC the Velodyne SMS-1 also.

I understand the way you have connected the EQ1 which is good I suppose and makes life simpler, but it might be worth plugging it into another outlet and then leave it in standby or on for normal operating...and that way it will not keep sending a burst of noise to the sub when turning the amp on...


----------



## goonstopher

ccdoggy said:


> they are totally out and have been for a while now. I won the contest on this site for one and am in the process of waiting for the next shipment to arrive before i can get mine. Seemingly very long and tireless waiting game.
> 
> Been holding off on a few movies so i can watch them with the EQ all setup and doin its thing.


Ha I HAVE mine and have had it sitting around waiting to be used for a couple months so my perfectly good as-eq1 is going to waste... oh well


----------



## snowmanick

Jason_Nolan said:


> One thing I would like to see SVS fix with a firmware update is the constant turn on thump you get through your subs when turning on your system.
> 
> Why is this necessary and even some of the cheapest gear has eliminated this problem for a while.
> 
> Am I the only one with this issue?


I had the same issue on other EQ's (BFD & Anti-Mode), I just leave them on. If you are power cycling or moving equimpent just follow a sequence where it is turned on b4 the sub(s) and you should be fine.


----------



## Jason_Nolan

snowmanick said:


> I had the same issue on other EQ's (BFD & Anti-Mode), I just leave them on. If you are power cycling or moving equimpent just follow a sequence where it is turned on b4 the sub(s) and you should be fine.


I see what you're saying, but for a 700 dollar eq this shouldn't be an option or it should have come with a cheap remote to turn it off and on and also to bypass if you'd like to.

All in all, these are small gripes for a good piece of equipment.


----------



## Doug McBride

*New Version of SubEQ (3.2) Available*

In a little bit I’ll be pushing out a notification email to US AS-EQ1 customers indicating the new software is available for download. If you purchased your AS-EQ1 from one of our dealers, you will be receiving or already have received the notification from them with essentially the same information.

If you are a US customer and don’t receive the notification email by tomorrow (Friday 11/6) please email me at [email protected] and let me know so I can get you on the list for future mailings.

SubEQ 3.2 has been tested extensively by a broad cross-section of users with different types of equipment. As you’ll see, we’ve changed the Level Matching procedure so that Audyssey equipped AVRs and Pre/Pros are set up differently than other types of Auto EQ/Auto Setup systems. Both types of AVRs and Pre/Pros have simplified and reliable level matching methods that you should find to be more straightforward than the unified method used with SubEQ 3.1.

Please take the time to read the Update documentation and become comfortable with the steps necessary to perform the upgrade. Although the doc has several pages, there’s a lot of redundancy since both types of Level Matching processes are covered in detail, as they are in the updated Operator Manual.

The AS-EQ1_SubEQ3.2_Update.zip file is essentially a CD image of what you would receive with the AS-EQ1 product. You can either un-zip it on your hard disk and run it from there, or you can burn the contents of the .zip file to a CD.

Highlights of this release are additional Windows platform support and updated firmware that improves the accuracy of measurement and provides 2X the filter resolution of the previous version.

Enjoy.

Doug McBride
SVSound Software Services

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Following is a copy of the notification email to US customers:

Dear SVSound AS-EQ1 customer:

You are receiving this email because you requested to receive update notices for the SVSound AS-EQ1 software, firmware and technical procedures.

This is to alert you that a new version of the SVSound AS-EQ1 software and firmware is available to current AS-EQ1 customers. Instructions on how to upgrade your AS-EQ1 from SubEQ 3.1 to SubEQ 3.2 (including new firmware) can be downloaded from:

http://www.svsound.com/AS-EQ1/SubEQ3.2/AS-EQ1_SubEQ3.2_Update_Technical_Note.pdf

The updated software and documentation can be downloaded from:

http://www.svsound.com/AS-EQ1/SubEQ3.2/AS-EQ1_SubEQ3.2_Update.zip

SubEQ 3.2 includes new features and bug fixes from SubEQ 3.1. These include:

• Support for Windows Vista 64-bit OS. This extends formal Windows platform support to include XP, Vista-32 bit and Vista 64-bit. Windows 7 32/64 is currently being certified however early tests indicate no issues.

• Updated Level Measurement Method. The Level Matching function now uses the “C-weighted Leq method” and supports a Reset button. Leq is essentially a running average of the sound level as calculated over the measurement period.

• A new Level Matching procedure for both Audyssey MultEQ-equipped and non-Audyssey AVRs and Pre/Pros.

• Updated firmware for AS-EQ1 DSP.

• Filter resolution doubled over previous firmware.

• Certificate graphing bug fixed in Vista.

Please download and thoroughly read the AS-EQ1_SubEQ 3.2_Update_Technical_Note before beginning the update process as it requires a re-calibration of the AS-EQ1 and if using an Audyssey MultEQ-equipped receiver/processor, a re-calibration of that unit as well.

If you have any questions or require assistance with the update of your AS-EQ1, please email [email protected] and we will be happy to help.


----------



## bac4822

*Re: New Version of SubEQ (3.2) Available*

Installed the SubEQ software and firmware updates and found great improvement. Since I last posted, I upgraded my Yamaha AVR to an Onkyo TX-SR707 with Audyssey MultEQ. Version 3.2 of SubEQ gave a flatter after bass frequency response and the suggested sub trim level, which always was 2 to 2.5 dB high in version 3.1, now corresponds well to the value assigned by my AVR. SubEQ suggested a sub level of +0.5 dB and distance of 18.6 ft; my AVR 0.0 dB sub trim and distance of 18.5 ft.


----------



## goonstopher

This board seems to be where the real technical talk goes on so I NEED some input!

My subs are mismatched so I need to use one of these trade off, I am willing to try all of them but would like to know where to start:

Setup - Epik Dynasty that goes to a true 15hz -3, the other is dual 19ov.02's from eD at 6'cu each powered with 650w with an f3 around 45hz pre-room

*Option 1: *Use 1 in 1 out - Turn on the crossover on the ported sub set at 45-50hz (low pass filter) and place out a y-splitter after the output on the as-eq1 - Let each sub handle half of the frequencies

My thoughts: The sealed has great headroom above its f3 despite being dual 18's also I do not need more headroom than either sub could provide on its own so this would cover the full band BUT only using 1 in 1 out might not be best and why throw away headroom if you have it. Also I have heard here and there that the deeper epik subs can lack some punch if one was to nitpick

*Option 2: *Use 1 in 2 out - Use an external boost to lower the f3 of the sealed subs to 33hz pre-room gain and get room gain into the high 20's f3 and possibly bring the combined f3 into the mid 20's

My thoughts: The possible bottoming scares me, mikep from says it would bottom at 450w and I give them 650 peak but Elemental designs gives theirs up to 1300w. In this case I would be getting more than the epik alone and moving a lot of air. This seems like the highest bass output with 2 subs operating at once for an even response.

*Option 3:* 2 in 2 out - Same as above BUT separated into 2 in 2 out

Thoughts - If option 2 seems best then I will try this as well and judge by ear since the change is so easy but technically there would be a tenancy to be heavier about the f3 than above because they are not eq'ed relative to each other


----------



## malikarshad

*Re: New Version of SubEQ (3.2) Available*



bac4822 said:


> Installed the SubEQ software and firmware updates and found great improvement. Since I last posted, I upgraded my Yamaha AVR to an Onkyo TX-SR707 with Audyssey MultEQ. Version 3.2 of SubEQ gave a flatter after bass frequency response and the suggested sub trim level, which always was 2 to 2.5 dB high in version 3.1, now corresponds well to the value assigned by my AVR. SubEQ suggested a sub level of +0.5 dB and distance of 18.6 ft; my AVR 0.0 dB sub trim and distance of 18.5 ft.


I upgraded the firmware to 3.2 and found that the bass has improved :T. It sounds much tigher and smoother then the previous calibration. 
I have the older single SVS PB2+(12.3 drivers) and I took 9 measurments. The new trim level is +1.0 from +3.5 and the distance remained the same at 19.1ft.

Good work SVS and keep it up on the great products :thumb:.


----------



## recruit

So with the new firmware, it has increased the filter resolution as per the below, does that mean it goes up from 256 to 512?



Doug McBride said:


> Highlights of this release are additional Windows platform support and updated firmware that improves the accuracy of measurement and provides 2X the filter resolution of the previous version.


----------



## malikarshad

recruit said:


> So with the new firmware, has it increased the filter resolution as I have been reading that it does?


I read that the filter resolution is doubled and I guess that's where i'm seeing more finer control over bass frequencies in my setup.


----------



## counsil

recruit said:


> So with the new firmware, it has increased the filter resolution as per the below, does that mean it goes up from 256 to 512?


That is correct. I have already asked Audyssey. 512x it is!


----------



## ccdoggy

Any news on the next batch? Updates?

On the site it says the shipment was supposed to arrive (about) yesterday (16th) and some of us are getting pretty anxious to finally get this awesome device.


----------



## stevefish69

*Re: New Version of SubEQ (3.2) Available*



malikarshad said:


> I upgraded the firmware to 3.2 and found that the bass has improved :T. It sounds much tigher and smoother then the previous calibration.
> I have the older single SVS PB2+(12.3 drivers) and I took 9 measurments. The new trim level is +1.0 from +3.5 and the distance remained the same at 19.1ft.
> 
> Good work SVS and keep it up on the great products :thumb:.


Ditto - I'm getting much better results here too with a more punchy tighter responce. 

I watched Transformers 2 before and after the firmware change and even the missus commented on how much better it sounded :unbelievable:


----------



## recruit

*Re: New Version of SubEQ (3.2) Available*



stevefish69 said:


> Ditto - I'm getting much better results here too with a more punchy tighter responce.
> 
> I watched Transformers 2 before and after the firmware change and even the missus commented on how much better it sounded :unbelievable:


dont say these things steve as I am very tempted to try one of these out now :spend:


----------



## malikarshad

*Re: New Version of SubEQ (3.2) Available*



recruit said:


> dont say these things steve as I am very tempted to try one of these out now :spend:


You dont know what you are missing. Once you have it you'll keep thinking why didn't i get it earlier.


----------



## recruit

*Re: New Version of SubEQ (3.2) Available*



malikarshad said:


> You dont know what you are missing. Once you have it you'll keep thinking why didn't i get it earlier.


I know I'll give in now :bigsmile:


----------



## ccdoggy

Mine has been shipped so they must have gotten their supply.

just an fyi.

really pumped!


----------



## GasPipe

I got notice today that mine shipped. Be here day before thanksgiving. Better than turkey...


----------



## k0rww

*Re: New Version of SubEQ (3.2) Available*

Quote:
malikarshad wrote: 
You dont know what you are missing. Once you have it you'll keep thinking why didn't i get it earlier. 

I agree with your review, Super audio and video. I found the movie too long for its intensity, which is easy to fix. I haven't had a chance to upgrade and recalibrate my AS-EQ1. I've been busy converting from a Mits 65908 component TV to a Panasonic Plasma TC-P65v10. I definitely love HDMI and the Panasonic TV?

Richard


----------



## Dwight Angus

*Re: New Version of SubEQ (3.2) Available*

Yeah I just upgraded to 3.2 firmware and I noticed a big difference.Also watched Transformers 2 and was amazed how much tighter and cleaner the bass was.


----------



## Jason_Nolan

I'll be the only one to say I didn't notice a difference with the upgrade after calibration, nor did I see it on a graph. Regardless, it worked well before and still does.


----------



## stevefish69

recruit said:


> So with the new firmware, it has increased the filter resolution as per the below, does that mean it goes up from 256 to 512?


I posted this in AV-Forums where i normally live but thought you guys over the pond may be interested too. I'm not sure where the initial tap count came from so i though i'd get an answer straight from the horses mouth as to what was going on under the hood :bigsmile:

I sent a quick mail to a guy at Audyssey today ref the firmware update and recieved the following back. Hope he don't mind me posting it

_*There were two changes in the new firmware:


1) The MultEQ XT filter resolution was doubled. This makes the AS-EQ1 have 4x the resolution of the MultEQ XT filters that are available in AVRs and it is possible because we can use the entire DSP chip in the AS-EQ1 (instead of sharing resources with other processes in an AVR). This doubling of resolution means that the filters use 16,000 individual control points (taps) to shape the frequency response and undo the effects of low frequency problems in the room. Compared to the few (24 is the highest I've seen, most have 3) parametric bands of EQ that other approaches use this is a huge improvement. 


2) There was a small improvement made in how the software calculates levels to increase the precision of that method*_


16,000 individual taps


----------



## recruit

That is good to know steve thanks for sharing, I could possibly be tempted to try one of these out now, but my system does sound very good as it is or am I being too complacent again :rolleyesno:


----------



## jpk

Just got the new firmware installed and I believe it does sound better. I initially did a 6 point cal. then a nine. The six looks smoother? 
I'm trying some multi-channel DVD-As and SACDs now. Tomorrow I'll spin some vinyl and redbook CDs. Maybe some movie excerpts. Anyone using an Outlaw 990? Any setup problems with the Outlaw?
Joe


----------



## jpk

Yes, the upgrade sounds much better with everything I listen to!:T I really notice the improved clarity on the satellites, along with tighter, punchier more defined bass:hsd:
I wonder if there will be another upgrade; doubling the resolution again?:devil:
Joe


----------



## recruit

The ASEQ1 really is rather special and SVS really have come up trumps with this product, everyone who uses it notices big improvements in there whole system...


----------



## wheatenterrier

So I must be doing something wrong during the measurement part of the setup process. The bass sounds absolutely amazing, everywhere but the main listening position. If I sit in the main listening position, I hardly hear anything from the sub, it's like the eye of the storm. If I stand up though in that same spot, its sounds ridiculously good, it has depth and color and just sounds great.

I really want to have that great bass while seated in the main listening position. I took 14 measurements through out the 4 seating positions in front of my TV. What do yall suggest? Should I take some measurements standing up and around other parts of the room? It's a huge room, I have an svs pc12+ though.


----------



## Pocobear

WheatenTerrier,

Your probably getting a double null floor to ceiling and another one side to side mostly likely. Try the old trick of putting the sub in your favorite middle chair, assuming they are in a single row, and crawl around on the floor in all the places you could put the sub, and see which position is loudest. Put a quarter (marker) on that position and keep crawling around till you find another spot that's loudest, mark it. Then move the sub to the other middle chair and see which one of the positions is is the loudest now. Put the sub in the loudest position and remeasure at 2foot intervals, one at ear level and one 2ft in front of first one, repeat for each chair. You should have 12 measurements. You may want to throw in a few extra at 1ft intervals for the critics chair. Hope this will help. Double null and peaks are a real pain to deal with!!


----------



## Ed Mullen

I agree this sounds like a floor/ceiling null, the location of which (in the vertical plane) is a function of the floor-to-ceiling height, and the height of the woofer itself. 

If you take measurements at the listening position in the vertical plane, you'll note this null goes away when the mic reaches standing head level, which is why it sounds better. 

A product like the ASC SubTrap elevates the subwoofer, effectively decouples it from the floor/ceiling mode, and is specifically tuned to trap this mode (two sizes are available 18" and 22", the latter being more effective at deeper mode frequencies found with taller ceilings). SVS and ASC are not affiliated; I reviewed the SubTrap for Secrets of HT and Hi-Fi. 

The cylinder subs are already tall, and elevating them even further might not fly in the WAF department, but it's worth a try if you cannot otherwise escape this pesky floor/ceiling null.


----------



## pietsch288

I have had nothing but a nightmare with my subs over the last couple of years, moving-eqing, moving eqing, moving eqing ect. And at first they always seem better but after awhile I'd realize (again) that they are just too boomy and bass heavy. I currently have all 4 of my cs ultras placed around me......let me explain. I have two rows of couch's with the back one on a 11" riser. I placed 2 of the ultras on there side ---baseplate to baseplate ---directly behind the back couch and the other two the same way behind the front couch which is also in front of the rear couch (I built the riser to walk on so there is 2ft between the couch and the subs. Anyway I feel that without a doubt this is the best the subs have sounded while still giving me the feel that I like. I have tried every location that there is.... from throwing them all in the same corner to having 2 dead center of the front wall and 2 dead center of the back wall and they still sounded well......wrong. I am currently thinking of making the risor 18" tall and putting the subs underneith to hide them because..... ya you guessed it, they look a little odd. O ya by the way I do have eq wizard with the behringer eq and an SMS-1...... tried them both.....currently I am using just the SMS-1 because I can eq and use it as a xover, I am xing them over at 28hz at 48db and my mains play down to 40hz. I do have a 4db gain @ 16hz (I do that because the ep 2500 starts to cut off at 20hz and I really like the low stuff), I also have bass traps/first reflections ect. My point you ask??? How can the AS-EQ1 possibly fix these issues without worrying about subwoofer placement. Any where I put my subs I get some kind of room gain or a null of some sort which Ok just eq it out but the actual sound can't be right its way too annoying...... loud. I can't believe your telling me that if I purchased the AS-EQ1, I could put 2 ultras tight in the front right corner and the other two tight in the front left corner and have it sound like my current set up. Any time I do anything different all I get is surround sound/ diolog stealing bass. Seriously Do you guys really see that big of a difference, I would love to get these ultras up in the corners but I just don't think its realistic. I know there is a money back guarantee but because I am a non-believer I don't feel like its worth the hassle to return it........Unless you can talk me into it with some serious testimony. 
PS. I really don't want to build a new risor and put the subs underneith but they look...... ummmm odd.... so something has to be done. thanks rich


----------



## Pocobear

Welcome Rich,

I hope you have read the post above about floor to ceiling problems, you may be having the same type of problem, especially sense you have them up on your riser's and get the best results. Putting them under the risers may bring your problem back, as they would be back at floor level. Please post your room measurements, include floor to ceiling!, and relative positions of your speakers. Have you set your crossovers so low to try and eliminate the boom problem?, as most boom is usually in the 40 to 80hz range, which could mean the boom is coming from the fronts not the subs with that low a crossover.

The EQ-1 would help, but there's only so much it can do, but it would help some. I have 2 CS Ultras in my stereo room. They are both in the front right corner of the room ( approx 25x27x7.5ft) and the EQ-1 has helped to integrate them into the room very well, no one can tell where the are. However the room wasn't that bad to begin with. My home theater room (14.5x27x9.5ft) using SVS PB12 Ultra 2 located on the left wall one third of the way out ( 9ft) from the front wall, was helped enormously by the EQ-1. I tried multi subs in that room, and no matter where I put them ( I was limited to about 5 positions ) it made things worse, so I settled for the one and it sounds great. With the sub in the 20hz setting, they are -3db down at 18hz, in the 16hz setting there are -3db down at 14hz and within -1db up to over 100hz

Please give us more info and I'm sure some one will be glad to help.


----------



## pietsch288

The subs are actually lying down on the concrete floor behind the risor and in front of. The room is 23x15.5x9.5 and I agree with you...... I do feel like anything over 30hz annoy's me. I am aware one of my problems is that I crank up my subs 25-30db more than my mains so obvously I'm not going to like 40-50hz up to30DB louder slappin me in the face. But In my defense I have tried everything exactly how my AVR sets audyssey up and the subs sounded way worse than what I've been doing with them. It sounds like my room is almost the same as your theater room with (I'm just guessing) very similar problems. So seriously......do you have helicopter blades hitting you in the back??? Without the boom?? I do in my current setting but I don't feel like I should have to cut them off @ 27hz, not to mention that I must be missing something by not running them to 80 or at least 50hz. Now that you have the EQ-1 have you tried putting that ultra in the corner to see how it sounds???? By what they are saying you should get the same sound as pulling it away from the wall but the bottom boost of corner loading. Which I think is impossable but if you tried it and told me it was like riding in a helecopter I'd have no choice but to buy the EQ and try it. thanks rich


----------



## Pocobear

Rich,

Sorry I just typed you a long note and it just disappeared. Short of it is check out Clark Synthesis Tactile transducers, they will give you the kick in the butt you want without the boom. They are full range not limited like others. You will need another amp to drive them, something like the Crown xti 1000 amps would do, they have built in xovers, as do others. Then get the EQ-1 and set up your subs normally. I think your "blades" will be cutting you in half, without the boom. I have 2 Clark Syn's in my riser and the effect on movies is amazing. They can scare the you know what out of you and your guest.


----------



## Frank D

Pocobear said:


> Rich,
> 
> Sorry I just typed you a long note and it just disappeared. Short of it is check out Clark Synthesis Tactile transducers, they will give you the kick in the butt you want without the boom. They are full range not limited like others. You will need another amp to drive them, something like the Crown xti 1000 amps would do, they have built in xovers, as do others. Then get the EQ-1 and set up your subs normally. I think your "blades" will be cutting you in half, without the boom. I have 2 Clark Syn's in my riser and the effect on movies is amazing. They can scare the you know what out of you and your guest.


The Clarks, Butt Kickers or Crowsens, when dialed in appropriately to blend in, will definitely give you that kick in your butt feeling which is a great added effect. 

However your sub will give you that kick in the chest feeling. I have lost some of that impact myself due to too much necessary cutting at the mid and low bass regions using my SMS-1 to get rid of my boomy bass (trade off for me was worth it as I hate boomy bass). I have just ordered the SVS AQ-E1 and am hoping that it does a better job and helps to bring back some of that impact.

I have used double drywall for my HT and it is fully sealed (sound proof type doors) and is located in a corner of my basement (mostly below ground so behind two of the four walls is concrete walls) which I think contributed to my boomy bass (way too much 35Hz and below). When I had my HT on the main floor with regular one sheet drywall construction, a large window to the rear and open entrance I had AMAZING BASS IMPACT (KICK IN THE CHEST FEELING). Only a bit of boominess at around 48 Hz but my EQ (Berhinger at time) easily fixed that.


----------



## pietsch288

I had the butt kicker version of transducers and didn't care for them.....I tried a few different mounting styles and they simply did not work for me, I like 14-25hz bass much much better, bass just feels more natural to me.


----------



## pietsch288

I had the buttkicker version of the transducers and I tried a variety of diff mounting options but did not care for them. For me the subwoofer feels more natural. I assume part of my problems with bass are that I am essentally trying to make my subs well.......buttkickers.


----------



## Pocobear

Rich,

I don't think you would benefit from the EQ-1 as it makes bass sound like it should sound. I suggest that you save up and get 4 SVS Ultra 13's or wait until the rumored 15 and 18 inch models come out and get a couple of those. If you are running the CS-Ultra's as hard as you say, they aren't going to last much longer. You may find and EPIK Conquest used somewhere, though I doubt it, people love them. Times are hard and you may find a distress sale somewhere. Good Luck!


----------



## pietsch288

You're probably right about the eq-1, I don't think it fits my bass style. With 4 of those cs ultras I get pretty good 16-28hz room shaking bass without having to push them past there limits but your correct I am workin em hard. My plan is to build a new risor and hide the 4 ultras underneith and this spring add a IB with two 18" (I am planing to build a 14x20 entry shed/storage room addition directly behind my center channel/front wall...........the wife would never agree to a IB room . That should easily help me back off some DB's on the ultras while gaining more punch around 14-16hz or so.


----------



## ccdoggy

Out of curiosity, is there any thought on implementing a selectable high-pass filter into the configuration. I (knowing little about programming or your setup) would think that it would not be too hard, just have it not implement an eq below a freq and apply a 12db filter (also selectable).

Would be a great feature and could really help out in setup. My problem is that the EQ-1 is boosting too much in the low end (sub 15hz), and i am in more or less a null which it is compensating for and thus driving my amp to clip itself. would be awesome to just have a selector to implement a filter.


----------



## Doug McBride

ccdoggy said:


> Out of curiosity, is there any thought on implementing a selectable high-pass filter into the configuration. I (knowing little about programming or your setup) would think that it would not be too hard, just have it not implement an eq below a freq and apply a 12db filter (also selectable).
> 
> Would be a great feature and could really help out in setup. My problem is that the EQ-1 is boosting too much in the low end (sub 15hz), and i am in more or less a null which it is compensating for and thus driving my amp to clip itself. would be awesome to just have a selector to implement a filter.


The AS-EQ1 (actually the Audyssey MultEQ XT in it) detects your -3 dB point and applies no boost or cut after that point.

Are you running Audyssey in your AVR or Pre/Pro? Did you run it over the top of the AS-EQ1 (e.g. did the AS-EQ1 first, then ran MultEQ in your AVR or Pre/pro afterward)? Are you using Dynamic EQ?

Also the AS-EQ1 will detect if you are in a null and not try and boost it versus just a dip which it will boost to a certain extent.

Let me know or send me an email at [email protected]

Doug McBride


----------



## ccdoggy

Doug McBride said:


> The AS-EQ1 (actually the Audyssey MultEQ XT in it) detects your -3 dB point and applies no boost or cut after that point.
> 
> Are you running Audyssey in your AVR or Pre/Pro? Did you run it over the top of the AS-EQ1 (e.g. did the AS-EQ1 first, then ran MultEQ in your AVR or Pre/pro afterward)? Are you using Dynamic EQ?
> 
> Also the AS-EQ1 will detect if you are in a null and not try and boost it versus just a dip which it will boost to a certain extent.
> 
> Let me know or send me an email at [email protected]
> 
> Doug McBride


I will email you more a bit after xmas and i get back to my place. but here is a quick rundown.

No other EQs at all in my system. everything goes from my computer to my Arcam avr300 receiver to the EQ1 then to an Art Clean box to amp the signal a bit for my ep-2500 sub amp.

I guess the thing that might have confused me the most is the end result graphs that show before and after. the before graph shows it rolling off kinda early, and the after shows it so very flat into the subsonics so i assumed it was doing filtering there and that was what was causing the problems.

I will do some more testing and see what i come up with to nail down exactly what the issue is with.

Thanks for the quick response!


----------



## drdoan

Here is my graph with the AS-EQ1, first with my SVSound PB12-Plus/2 (12.3 drivers) set for 25HZ in the front left corner of my HT room, then on the left center wall. How is that for flat? Dennis


----------



## markus76

How did you measure that? Measurement signal, length of signal, length of impulse response the frequency response is calculated from, is the frequency response smoothed?

Thanks, Markus


----------



## drdoan

It is all done by the Audyssey AS-EQ1 from SVSound. The procedure takes about 45 minutes to complete. The graphs are generated when you complete the set up. They also show the "before" graphs. Dennis


----------



## markus76

I doubt that those graphs show reality. You should see something more like this after calibration - especially when using only one subwoofer:










Picture shows one single subwoofer EQ'd using a DSPeaker-Anti-Mode 8033. Calibration takes only 3 minutes.

Best, Markus


----------



## markus76

drdoan, would you be so kind and post the "before" graphs too? Thanks.

Tried to find more information about the graphs generated by the Audyssey software with no luck. Maybe someone else has detailed information?

Best, Markus


----------



## drdoan

I only have one "before" graph in the center wall position. I am sure they use some smoothing, but, I think the graph is representitive of the actual sound as I can hear a major difference in the clarity, impact, and musicality of the woofer. Dennis


----------



## drdoan

Also, remember that Audyssey is not only equalizing the level, it is also doing much more, such as, distance, phase, etc. Dennis


----------



## markus76

Those are sugarcoated graphs. Reality looks and sounds like this (at least <100Hz):










Has anybody ever posted real world data of a setup EQ'd by the AS-EQ1?



> it is also doing much more, such as, distance, phase, etc.


It does not optimize the crossover region where subwoofers, mains and surrounds overlap. At least not in a way it would make sense.

Best, Markus


----------



## eugovector

I agree that the smoothing makes the results look more ideal than they are, and would love to see someone fire up REW and give before and after.

The AS-EQ1 doesn't affect crossover to my knowledge as that setting should be done in the receiver.


----------



## markus76

eugovector said:


> The AS-EQ1 doesn't affect crossover to my knowledge as that setting should be done in the receiver.


*All* measuring and EQing should be done by and in the receiver but to my knowledge unfortunately there's no product out there capable of that.

Best, Markus


----------



## eugovector

Can you speak to problems inherent in EQ-ing after the pre but before the amp, as the SVS unit does? Seems like it should work fine to me.


----------



## counsil

markus76 said:


> Has anybody ever posted real world data of a setup EQ'd by the AS-EQ1?


I have a Denon 3808CI (calibrated with Audyssey Pro), as well as, an Audyssey Sub Equalizer (installer version of AS-EQ1). Here is a review that I did when I first got it all setup. I provided tons of before and after graphs (output from Sub Equalizer calibration and REW).

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1169302

The waterfalls you see on the first page aren't very easy to read because I hadn't ever created waterfalls before. Go to page 3 for better ones...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16970594#post16970594

Let me know if you have any questions...


----------



## markus76

eugovector said:


> Can you speak to problems inherent in EQ-ing after the pre but before the amp, as the SVS unit does? Seems like it should work fine to me.


The effects of a room's modal field at the listening position(s) changes with the number and placement of low frequency sources. Thus optimization needs to account for all low frequency sources, not only for the subwoofers.
You probably know this paper: http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurComp...p/Documents/Scientific Publications/13680.pdf

Best, Markus


----------



## markus76

counsil said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16970594#post16970594
> 
> Let me know if you have any questions...


Thanks. Just had a quick look at the waterfalls. They look very good. But the initial situation did not look bad either. How is the room constructed?

Did you make sure that the measuring signal came from all speakers at once? Best would be to measure with an RTA using white or pink noise (depends on how your RTA works) and look at the steady state response. Especially at the crossover frequency to the mains.

Best, Markus


----------



## bpape

markus76 said:


> *All* measuring and EQing should be done by and in the receiver but to my knowledge unfortunately there's no product out there capable of that.
> 
> Best, Markus


What is this based on? Even in a receiver, the EQ is happening between the preamp stage and the power amp stage, just inside one physical box (unless the EQ is happening in the digital domain).

Bryan


----------



## markus76

Hi Brian

Did I suggest otherwise? It's obvious that an EQ has to be applied in the signal path somewhere before amplification. The only drawback with equipment like the SVS might be the additional A/D/A conversion. But I doubt that this will have any detrimental effects, especially at low frequencies.

My point is that an optimal low frequency optimization has to be based on *all* transfer functions of *all* contributing sources. That includes the mains and surrounds. All currently available solutions that I know of exclude them.

Best, Markus


----------



## bpape

Absolutely agree. The A/D/A is a potential concern with any digital type EQ. That's why I personally use an analog parametric EQ between processor and sub in my setup. Understood on the multiple seating locations and sources. The sources generally aren't as big a concern IMO as low frequency EQ issues are mostly room related and those are constant for all sources.

Wasn't trying to stir the pot - just wondering about the basis for the statement.

Bryan


----------



## markus76

Modal peaks often have a very high Q (that's why low frequency measurements need to be high resolution - typical 1/3 octave is *not* enough). One needs to have some experience and measuring equipment to manually EQ them.



> The sources generally aren't as big a concern IMO as low frequency EQ issues are mostly room related and those are constant for all sources.


Not sure if I understand that statement correctly. What is heard at the listening position(s) changes dramatically with placement and number of low frequency sources. Only multiple subs and passive absorption helps. But we don't want to make this a GIK thread, right


----------



## bpape

Agreed on the resolution. 

Sorry - my misinterpretation on the term source. Thought you were referring to audio source equipment rather than specific speakers. Still, the only way to really accurately measure what's happening is with all speakers playing in the configuration they'll be used. It's nice to run them 1 at a time to see what is the speaker and what is the interaction with the others but in the end, they all have to play together.

Not at all my intention to make this a sales thread. It's about another product and it's performance. I was just curious about your statement. 

Back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Bryan


----------



## markus76

bpape said:


> Still, the only way to really accurately measure what's happening is with all speakers playing in the configuration they'll be used.


Yes, that's correct. At low frequencies we want to measure the steady state response of all loudspeakers playing at once because that is what we hear.



bpape said:


> It's nice to run them 1 at a time to see what is the speaker and what is the interaction with the others but in the end, they all have to play together.


Yes and the frequency response of all low frequency sources playing together is all that matters. But to calculate optimal settings for EQ, delay and level, single transfer functions from each loudspeaker to each listening position(s) need to be captured.

Best, Markus


----------



## blekenbleu

*Option 2*



Kal Rubinson said:


> Like this?
> _You can connect the powered subwoofer with each jacks
> respectively. Level and distance can be set individually
> for each output.​_


Unfortunately, the Onkyos do not allow one subwoofer output to be dedicated to LFE
with the other to high-passed mains, which works best for my mis-matched subwoofers.
My Denon 5805 died and and looking for a replacement with that capability.

An active crossover between pre-outs for front mains set to large would work,
but then have to figure how to set distance...


----------



## Kal Rubinson

*Re: Option 2*



blekenbleu said:


> Unfortunately, the Onkyos do not allow one subwoofer output to be dedicated to LFE
> with the other to high-passed mains, which works best for my mis-matched subwoofers.


I did not realize that you needed that particular feature. I was speaking, in general, about dual woofers.



> An active crossover between pre-outs for front mains set to large would work,
> but then have to figure how to set distance...


Tough one. This *might *work: http://service.us.panasonic.com/OPERMANPDF/SHAC500D.PDF


----------



## blekenbleu

*Re: Option 2*



Kal Rubinson said:


> I did not realize that you needed that particular feature. I was speaking, in general, about dual woofers.


I wonder how many folks with more than one have matching subs?



> Tough one. This *might *work: http://service.us.panasonic.com/OPERMANPDF/SHAC500D.PDF


In the olden days, I would feed an audio generator into the preamp and one channel of an X-Y scope,
with a microphone on the other channel, then dial the generator to find a crossover octave where
both a main and sub held relatively constant phase, having tweaked sub and main phase to match as nearly as possible. I suppose that puts the sub and main at roughly the same effective distance..


----------



## ufokillerz

big question, does the as-eq1 apply any subsonic filters? i am unsure if i should be putting something in line with my subwoofers. my sub will go down pretty low and i am afraid of damage to my subs.


----------



## Pocobear

ufokillerz - Yes it does, it sweeps the sub with a freq sweep at a low level to see how low it goes and how it reacts to the low freq sweep and applies a sub sonic filer to keep you from driving it to hard at a level that your sub can't handle. My subs can go down to below 16Hz in room and I can make them roar without overdriving them beyond their limits. I can also set the subs to 20Hz or 25Hz and rerun the setup and the EQ1 will readjust the subsonic filter accordingly. Unless you do something crazy like try to push 15HZ to 100db + for a couple of seconds you should be fine. Hope this answers your question. The EQ1 setup properly is AWSUM DUDE I have 2 of them in two different systems. Best investment I ever made to my systems! ENJOY


----------



## Doug McBride

Pocobear said:


> ufokillerz - Yes it does, it sweeps the sub with a freq sweep at a low level to see how low it goes and how it reacts to the low freq sweep and applies a sub sonic filer to keep you from driving it to hard at a level that your sub can't handle. My subs can go down to below 16Hz in room and I can make them roar without overdriving them beyond their limits. I can also set the subs to 20Hz or 25Hz and rerun the setup and the EQ1 will readjust the subsonic filter accordingly. Unless you do something crazy like try to push 15HZ to 100db + for a couple of seconds you should be fine. Hope this answers your question. The EQ1 setup properly is AWSUM DUDE I have 2 of them in two different systems. Best investment I ever made to my systems! ENJOY


Perhaps it's terminology, but the AS-EQ1 (and MultEQ in general) determines the +/-3 dB point of any channel it is equalizing and then applies no further EQ past that point. This is not the same as a subsonic, highpass, or lowpass filter. 

The device (speaker/sub) attached the EQ'ed channel will then behave as though there were no EQ or filter applied after the +/- 3 dB points, hence no protection if needed.

Doug


----------



## Pocobear

Doug - Sorry, my bad. So it's just allowing whatever built in filter the speaker has to do it's job without trying to override it, by adding any boost? Did you mean to say "no protection IF needed" or " no protection IS needed"?

Pocobear


----------



## Doug McBride

Pocobear said:


> Doug - Sorry, my bad. So it's just allowing whatever built in filter the speaker has to do it's job without trying to override it, by adding any boost? Did you mean to say "no protection IF needed" or " no protection IS needed"?
> 
> Pocobear


1. Exactly.

2. IF needed, as I said. Meaning if some form of filter is needed to protect the sub, the AS-EQ1 will not be providing it and it must come from another place. The AS-EQ1 is not providing any boost, it also is not providing any cut so if protection is needed, it has to be provided by another element in the signal path.

Doug


----------



## ufokillerz

Doug McBride said:


> 1. Exactly.
> 
> 2. IF needed, as I said. Meaning if some form of filter is needed to protect the sub, the AS-EQ1 will not be providing it and it must come from another place. The AS-EQ1 is not providing any boost, it also is not providing any cut so if protection is needed, it has to be provided by another element in the signal path.
> 
> Doug


Hi Doug, thanks for the answer, out of curiosity, is there any chance that a software upgrade can implement such a thing like a filter to protect the sub? svs and audyssey don't make such a product at the moment, so i don't think theres too much to lose in doing so? Just wondering if such a thing was possible.


----------



## Doug McBride

ufokillerz said:


> Hi Doug, thanks for the answer, out of curiosity, is there any chance that a software upgrade can implement such a thing like a filter to protect the sub? svs and audyssey don't make such a product at the moment, so i don't think theres too much to lose in doing so? Just wondering if such a thing was possible.


Unsure. I'll ask the folks at Audyssey if it is possible.

Doug


----------



## ufokillerz

Doug McBride said:


> Unsure. I'll ask the folks at Audyssey if it is possible.
> 
> Doug


Thank you very much Doug. I am very happy with the as-eq1, just that i do not want to have to settle for less or add another device in the chain to get the subsonic work.


----------



## hsv2kk

Anybody have any experience running the AS-EQ1 to a pro-amp such as the Behringer ep2500/4000?
What is the output voltage on the rca's on the EQ1? Is it enough to drive a Behringer ep series?

Thanks guys. :T
Steve.

edit:
I just ordered a Samson S-Convert.

AVR > SVS AS-EQ1 (with a single RCA to RCA cable)
SVS-EQ1 > Samson S-Convert (with twin RCA to RCA cables)
Samson S-Convert > Behringer EP4000 (with XLR to XLR cables)

Am I on the right track here? This is for 2x subwoofers with 1x ep4000. The subs will be eq'ed separately with the as-eq1.

Thanks guys!


----------



## ufokillerz

hsv2kk said:


> Anybody have any experience running the AS-EQ1 to a pro-amp such as the Behringer ep2500/4000?
> What is the output voltage on the rca's on the EQ1? Is it enough to drive a Behringer ep series?
> 
> Thanks guys. :T
> Steve.
> 
> edit:
> I just ordered a Samson S-Convert.
> 
> AVR > SVS AS-EQ1 (with a single RCA to RCA cable)
> SVS-EQ1 > Samson S-Convert (with twin RCA to RCA cables)
> Samson S-Convert > Behringer EP4000 (with XLR to XLR cables)
> 
> Am I on the right track here? This is for 2x subwoofers with 1x ep4000. The subs will be eq'ed separately with the as-eq1.
> 
> Thanks guys!


I run the SVS AS-EQ1 to my Behringer EP4000 no samson s-convert. No issues with gain or anything here, running 2x Danley DTS-10 subs.


----------



## Thomasdk1405

Hi !

Need your help guys as I'm confused here. Just bought the Onkyo 5007 with audyssey multeq - replacing an yamaha rx-v3800. The way the ASEQ should be configured is now different (didnt read carefully enough - or was it didnt catch on fast enough :laugh: ). Anyway - I did it like this - first I ran the audyssey setup according to reciever manual (as ASEQ tech notes said skip the eq assist). Then I hooked up the ASEQ and skipped the eq assist as noted in the 3.2 release notes.

Here I went wrong - I didn't adjust the master volume - but did as I always did - adjusting the trim values - so I'm up for one more try.

But (here comes the real question) - when I let reciever audyssey fix the sound - it also applies filters to the sub. When I then do the ASEQ setup - it also applies filters to the sub. With the yamaha - I had a flat filter for the sub in the receiver and ASEQ was the only one addressing the sub.

But what now - receiver is doing it things regarding the sub and the ASEQ aswell - wondering - dont I get double filters ?

My first try was a weak bass - not like I'm used to - but I also did wrong (know that now) - so I'll have another go here - but stil wondering.

Hope some of you tech guys can help me understand here :scratchhead:


----------



## drdoan

Do you have the latest firmware update to your AS-EQ1? If you follow the directions that come with the Audyssey (not the Onkyo) you will set it up correctly. If the sub is EQ'd first, the Onkyo will not do anything to the bass. I have all three: an SVS sub; Audyssey AS-EQ1; and an Onlyo with the Audyssey. I followed the AS-EQ1's instructions, and got a pancake flat bass response. The graph is posted much earlier in this thread. Dennis


----------



## Thomasdk1405

Hi !

I have the 3.2 version - to my knowledge the newest one. 
So according to you - first the sub and then the receiver - I'll try that tomorrow. Thanks !


----------



## drdoan

To be honest, I don't remember which was recommended first, I am not where I can look at the manuel, but, use the proceedure contained in the AS-EQ1. It will be the correct way. Dennis


----------



## Thomasdk1405

Hi !

:sad:
(from release notes)
It is strongly recommended that you read this Technical Note in its entirety before starting the upgrade
process and carefully note the steps to be taken, especially in the Level Matching section" (I failed miserable here)

after the ASEQ + save it clearly states:
Following the instructions provided with your AVR or Pre/Pro, and with your AVR or Pre/Pro’s Mic attached to the AVR or Pre/Pro(NOT the AS-EQ1) perform the MultEQ setup and calibration. The AS-EQ1 should be powered on, enabled and in the signal path, and your Subwoofer(s) on and set from the AS-EQ1 calibration.

Boy do I feel stupid now :duh: - think I was too excited to have my new Onkyo in play.

Thank you very much.


----------



## drdoan

Let us know how it does. Have fun. Dennis


----------



## victor tubeman

Hi,

Did my first calibration with svs AS-eq1 and using only 2 subs(another 2 will arrive soon) so was a test run till running 4 subs.Level matching proved difficult.(1 in 2 mono out).I use multi chan analog out only and use proceed AVP for sub chan with -12db at ref 75.Level matching was 0.3db for both sub a and b.

My question is at the end said to set level -3.2db ,the way i read it -12 - - 3.2 = -9db approx?Or is it lower -12 -3 = -15db?
Thankyou for any help.
Victor.


----------



## TRiSS

victor tubeman said:


> Hi,
> 
> Did my first calibration with svs AS-eq1 and using only 2 subs(another 2 will arrive soon) so was a test run till running 4 subs.Level matching proved difficult.(1 in 2 mono out).I use multi chan analog out only and use proceed AVP for sub chan with -12db at ref 75.Level matching was 0.3db for both sub a and b.
> 
> My question is at the end said to set level -3.2db ,the way i read it -12 - - 3.2 = -9db approx?Or is it lower -12 -3 = -15db?
> Thankyou for any help.
> Victor.


The svs wizard gives you the "absolute" trim level: so you set it to -3.2db or whatever is closest possible in your avr...

I'm not sure that starting off the calibration with the sub trim at -12 is a very good idea: isn't the intention to use the "sat" trim level to set the sat at 75db, and then match the subs with the sub amp gain (not the pre/pro trim)?


----------



## victor tubeman

TRiSS said:


> The svs wizard gives you the "absolute" trim level: so you set it to -3.2db or whatever is closest possible in your avr...
> 
> I'm not sure that starting off the calibration with the sub trim at -12 is a very good idea: isn't the intention to use the "sat" trim level to set the sat at 75db, and then match the subs with the sub amp gain (not the pre/pro trim)?


 Hi,

Using analog out there is no trim level for other channels as they go to another 2 analog only pre amps.Sub chan only goes thru Proceed AVP (pre/processor) for distance and level settings.Using test disc JPK bluray sub settings were -14db for ref 75db set with analog db meter.Svs as-eq1 mic is more acurate than db meter (but I will check combined sub levels later for ref 75db) went to -12db and fine tuned each sub level using gain control on each sub.
As each sub was individually set for 75db combined they will be over 75db,therefore I thought it should be -12 -3 = -15db .

Cheers Victor.


----------



## TRiSS

you may well be right, I'm not used to more complicated setups with separate pre/pro's... I just use an avr, and let audyssey + the svs audyssey do the math  It's just that in general it seem recommended not to use low/high trims when it can be avoided, and according to what I hear the subeq's trim level is not an "offset"? but I'm not sure in your case...

Maybe someone with a better knowledge can chime in? In any case, if no one here can help, I'm sure svs will help you if you contact them: I hear they are very responsive folks!


----------



## macmovieman

I want one of these so bad but it is not in the budget until it hits $499. That includes a pre owned one too. I will wait as long as it takes if ever.


----------



## sub_crazy

According to what I read from a question answered by Audyssey is that new receivers and pre-pro's with the new Audyssey XT32 has the SubEQ built in which is just as effective as the AS-EQ1. I wouldn't have believed it if someone didn't send me the link to that exact question on the Audyssey website.

According to Audyssey the only products with XT32 are 2 products from Onkyo, 3 from Integra and the Denon 4311.

Here's a link to more info about the new SubEQ in XT32:

http://www.audyssey.com/aboutus/press/326_audyssey-multiple-subwoofer-eq-technology-now-on-avrs-


----------



## sub_crazy

I did happen to find a question regarding the new SubEQ HT in the Denon 4311, this is not the same question that someone sent to me previously though.

http://ask.audyssey.com/entries/304079-sub-eq-ht

I would still think that the separate AS-EQ1 would have more processing power, does anyone have any info to support that thought?


----------



## tcarcio

sub_crazy said:


> I did happen to find a question regarding the new SubEQ HT in the Denon 4311, this is not the same question that someone sent to me previously though.
> 
> http://ask.audyssey.com/entries/304079-sub-eq-ht
> 
> I would still think that the separate AS-EQ1 would have more processing power, does anyone have any info to support that thought?


I submitted a question to Chris about this so I will post his answer.


----------



## tcarcio

I got an answer from Chris from Audyssey and he said, yes the XT32 in the new recievers makes the AS-EQ1 redundant. Now I have to rethink getting the AS-EQ1 or just waiting and getting a reciever with XT32.


----------



## cavchameleon

tcarcio said:


> I got an answer from Chris from Audyssey and he said, yes the XT32 in the new recievers makes the AS-EQ1 redundant. Now I have to rethink getting the AS-EQ1 or just waiting and getting a reciever with XT32.


Tcarcio,

If you are really planning on an AVR with XT32, I would wait. While the AS-EQ1 is an amazing piece of equipment for your subs (I don't think there is anything out there that can beat it in is price range for the subs), an AVR with XT32 will do wonders in all the freq bands and will blend your mains with your subs incredibly well. Plus, with XT32, you also get Dynamic EQ and Volume, and DSX.

Ray


----------



## tcarcio

cavchameleon said:


> Tcarcio,
> 
> If you are really planning on an AVR with XT32, I would wait. While the AS-EQ1 is an amazing piece of equipment for your subs (I don't think there is anything out there that can beat it in is price range for the subs), an AVR with XT32 will do wonders in all the freq bands and will blend your mains with your subs incredibly well. Plus, with XT32, you also get Dynamic EQ and Volume, and DSX.
> 
> Ray


I agree. I am kicking myself in the butt because I just bought a Marantz SR5004 with MultEQ and I should have just waited till I had the money for a reciever with XT but I was just too impatient. I like the 5004 but I should have had more patience.:doh:


----------



## cavchameleon

tcarcio said:


> I agree. I am kicking myself in the butt because I just bought a Marantz SR5004 with MultEQ and I should have just waited till I had the money for a reciever with XT but I was just too impatient. I like the 5004 but I should have had more patience.:doh:


I've done that many times in the past. I've learned to have a little more patience now (but that of course if overcome at times by desire...).


----------



## sub_crazy

cavchameleon said:


> I've done that many times in the past. I've learned to have a little more patience now (but that of course if overcome at times by desire...).


Patience, Whats that?


----------



## cavchameleon

sub_crazy said:


> Patience, Whats that?


Five minutes of silence - and then that is sometimes too long...:gulp:

Yes, sometimes that is pretty hard, although my 4yo son it sure re-teaching me the meaning of patience.


----------



## Thomasdk1405

Hi again ! Once again - I turn this way. I've got onkyo 5007 avr + the as-eq1. Got 2 mics - acm1h (5007) and acm1 (as-eq1). According to what I've read elsewhere the acm1h is best for the Onkyo but could I use the acm1h for the as-eq1 also ?

1. Do I need to use the as-eq1 + the avr setup - i.e. both now that the onkyo also got the same audyssey. (maybe the as-eq1 fixes most of the peaks and nulls and then the Onkyo takes the rest ?)
2. If both are needed - then can I use same acm1h for both the as-eq1 and the Onkyo or should I use the acm1 for the as-eq1 and then the acm1h for Onkyo - 2 different mics ?

As I see it - it looks like when I use the acm1h for as-eq1 it boosts the bass in the 20-30 hz region in the before picture than when using acm1. The after picture looks pretty much the same.

In short - what do you guys use - same mic for both or the supplied one for each ?


----------



## eugovector

You should only use the supplied mic with each product. The correction curves are different, so using a different mic will yield an incorrect result. 

Unless onkyo has done an upgrade to MultEQ XT 32 that I'm no aware of, you shook still use the subEQ.


----------



## cavchameleon

^^^ What Marshall said! I also looked up your Onkyo model, keep the AS-EQ1 as the 5007 only has MultXT. If you had XT32, you would be able to take it out of the equation. 

Have Fun


----------



## Thomasdk1405

Did also contact svs support (Ed Mullen) and here is his answer (copy/paste from mail):
"[Ed Mullen] You can use the ACM1h for the AS-EQ1. All of the ACM mics have similar deep frequency response and only really differ on the top-end. The ACM1h is the standard mic shipping with the AS-EQ1. I do recall some of the early mics were not labeled as "h" variants, but Audyssey assured us they were all indeed the "h" variant."

So according to this everyone should have an "H" model eventhough not labled so on the box so no need to use 2 different mics for this operation then


----------



## cavchameleon

Good to know! Thanks for the update.


----------



## aandpwoodley

Apologies if this has asked before, I'm a new member & currently half way through reading this thread.

My Onkyo 5008 has Multeq XT32, would there be any point in adding the AS-EQ1 to help calibrate my Pb Ultra.

thanks

Andy


----------



## drdoan

Adding the AS-EQ1 frees up more eq for the other speakers. That is what I have done and love it. Have fun. Dennis


----------



## sub_crazy

aandpwoodley said:


> Apologies if this has asked before, I'm a new member & currently half way through reading this thread.
> 
> My Onkyo 5008 has Multeq XT32, would there be any point in adding the AS-EQ1 to help calibrate my Pb Ultra.
> 
> thanks
> 
> Andy


The 5008 with XT32 also includes SubEQ which according to Audysey does the same job as the AS-EQ1. Your same question was asked on the Audyssey website and that was there response to it.


----------



## sub_crazy

drdoan said:


> Adding the AS-EQ1 frees up more eq for the other speakers. That is what I have done and love it. Have fun. Dennis


For normal Audyssey XT that might be the case but not for XT32 which the 5008 that was asked about has.


----------



## drdoan

I didn't know that the new Audyssey had that. No need for the EQ-1.


----------



## Dwight Angus

the 5008 has xt32 so no need for the As-eq1


----------



## sub_crazy

drdoan said:


> I didn't know that the new Audyssey had that. No need for the EQ-1.


It is easier to use as well over the AS-EQ1 since it is integrated into the pre-pro or receiver.


----------



## Dwight Angus

The as-eq1 allows you 32 sample postions while xt32 allows 8 positions unless you upgrade to the pro version.


----------



## Thomasdk1405

*deleted* - regret the post !


----------



## Thomasdk1405

Hi there ! Trying to investigate a problem I've got. First - where is the AS-EQ1 mic calibraton file stored - inside the AS-EQ or in the software ? On receivers the cal. file is stored inside the receiver.

Get different results depending on what mic I use - eventhough it should be the same. ACM1 came with the AS-EQ and ACM1H with receiver. From what I've read - ACM1 is just misprint and it's a ACM1H. Some say use same mic for both and others say don't mix.

Also bought a ACM1HB - just for testing for both AS-EQ1 and receiver (Onkyo 5007). I've used ACM1H (receiver mic) for both and also ACM1 + ACM1H and not 100 % happy.

Think I'll try the old method - with auto-assist and trim levels. Back when I had my Yamaha the bass was more brutal when it was AS-EQ that had the final Word in the subwoofer.

/Thomas


----------



## Sonnie

I will see if I can get Doug to help us on this one. I do know that in some cases there is a calibration file for "each" mic. All UMIK-1's, UMM-6's, ECM-8000's are NOT the same... each mic in each model line has it's own specific cal file. I don't know that every setup mic included with various receivers are the exact same, and they may each have a specific cal file loaded into the receiver they are paired with. Perhaps they use the same cal file for all the mics, although I have not known of a run of mic capsules that have all been identical, particularly the lesser expensive ones.


----------



## Sonnie

I have verified that the ACM1h is the correct mic to use. Other models may not give the same readings. Keep in mind that these are spec'd to +/- 2dB, so from one mic to the next, they could vary slightly.


----------



## Thomasdk1405

Hmm - might have an idea - what is wrong here. My room has now gotten wooden floor - before that carpet. I used to use the room comp setting on large (by mistake) - found out when sub and all gear was out of room to get the wooden floor. I have a tremendous nul at 60 hz - and I think thats the problem. AS-EQ does it's best to fix that. But still have a null after it's done. Then over to Onkyo multeq xt - it also tries to fix the rest - and we end up in a hopeless situation. Unable to fix the sofa and sub placement but it looks like when using the room comp filter to large / medium - it takes down my huge peak at 23-25 hz - but it also reduces the nul at 60 hz ? Bouncing bass waves in the room that cancles something ? I don't know - but will try to use the room comp and see where it brings me. Could also use the old method - then onkyo will not also try to fix.

But thx a lot !
/Thomas


----------



## Sonnie

Nulls are a direct result of less than ideal placement of the sub in the room. In many cases the only solution to eliminating the null is moving the subwoofer. If the sub can't be moved, there is likely no amount of equalization to cure it. Even when you do try boosting the null, you put more stress on the subwoofer and on the amp driving it. You can try changing the orientation... firing it against a wall, etc, which can also change the response. Phase can also have an affect.


----------



## bpape

That and seat position. The best way to deal with a null other than moving the sub (and sometimes in addition) is not sitting where the null is present.


----------



## Sonnie

Good point... move yourself. However, for music listening that might also require moving your speakers if you have placed them for the best imaging, soundstaging, etc.


----------



## Thomasdk1405

Hi Again !
Didn't change anything else than the room comp filter to large - and now - ruler flat from 120 Hz and down and sounds great again with music. Haven't tried movies yet - but when music sounds great - movies should too.

Did use acm1h for both the AS-EQ and Onkyo. Looked at both graphs - RoomComp filter off vs Large - and off has a little more below 20 hz than large (uses the pb 13 ultra in 20 hz mode) - but then again - not ruler flat at 60 Hz !! 

Again thx for helping out here !
/Thomas


----------



## Thomasdk1405

Sonnie said:


> Nulls are a direct result of less than ideal placement of the sub in the room. In many cases the only solution to eliminating the null is moving the subwoofer. If the sub can't be moved, there is likely no amount of equalization to cure it. Even when you do try boosting the null, you put more stress on the subwoofer and on the amp driving it. You can try changing the orientation... firing it against a wall, etc, which can also change the response. Phase can also have an affect.


Hi !
Just curious regarding "the phase can have an effect" - maybe I misunderstand here - but can you reduce a null by turning the phase knob ? It states in manual that it should be a 0 position - and also - doesn't Audyssey just correct the distance to subwoofer differently. Please clarify this - thx.:help:

Regards
Thomas


----------



## Sonnie

Yes... phase and distance can have an affect on the response. I have two subs... I can delay one of the with the distance setting of either sub and see the response change with REW. I an also adjust the phase and see the response change. Phase, distance and delay are related (you would want to start another thread to get into that discussion - or simply research it on web).

You would have to confirm with Audyssey as to the distance adjustment of the subwoofer, I am not sure of the method they use for this. I do know that it is not always the physical measurement.


----------



## Phillips

Hi I have a ASEQ-1 though not bad with the distance setting, adjusting with another program proved that it was out by 3/4 meter. Adjusting the distance setting in the receiver improved the response a lot.


----------



## yosh7

Thanks for all the great info on this thread.


----------

