# Denon AVR-x4200w calibration with REW and Umix-1



## stonemarten (Jan 4, 2016)

Dear experts,

I’m trying to calibrate with my Umix-1 that Denon AV, and I need your knowledge to understand what I’m doing wrong

The issue is that the audissey calibration is WAY better than mine grin2, and even the “flat” setting, created with the audissey, sound better
Delay and SPL were both fine from the audissey result, checked with REW

So, after hours of desperation, I copy the “flat” EQ result to the digital EQ, and here something strange happens, IMHO: in my understanding, the Audissey flat and the EQ copy should sound the same, because it’s a copy/paste… in reality, the Audissey flat was again WAY better than its own copy

Below the FR measured at listening position, mic at 90deg with the right calibration file

Audissey vs Flat Audissey









Audiseey flat vs manual set up









Manual set up









Could you please help me in understand where I’m wrong, as well as review my FR and support me in how to improve?
The amp was set in Multi-ch all the time, for a 4.0 system with B&O tower speakers

Thanks in advance for your help!!
Cheers


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

stonemarten said:


> ...So, after hours of desperation, I copy the “flat” EQ result to the digital EQ...


Sorry, need a little more explanation here. "copy the flat EQ result," where does this reside and in what form, where to and in what form? I'm afraid I am not quite following you on this step.



> ...and here something strange happens, IMHO: in my understanding, the Audissey flat and the EQ copy should sound the same, because it’s a copy/paste… in reality, the Audissey flat was again WAY better than its own copy


This second part will probably make more sense to me once my first questions have been answered. "EQ copy and paste?"



> Below the FR measured at listening position, mic at 90deg with the right calibration file
> 
> .....
> 
> ...


About all I can say at this point is that it is clear that they will sound different. Afraid I can give no explanation without knowing more about the circumstances.


----------



## stonemarten (Jan 4, 2016)

AudiocRaver,

thanks for your answer

copy/paste operation: in the Manual EQ setting in the AV, there is an option called "copy Audissey Flat EQ setting to EQ", where it's supposed to paste the Audissey Flat EQ setting to the manual EQ (and it did because all the sliders moved away from zero) as reference and starting point for a manual EQ optimization

in theory they should sound exactly the same, but in the reality they were very different, and the Audissey Flat EQ setting (automatic not the one copied) was better than its own copy to the manual EQ

I hope that the explanation helps you in understanding better where I'm struggling, please let me know if I need to be clearer

what do you think about the FR?

cheers


----------



## selden (Nov 15, 2009)

One problem is that the graphic equalizer provided in D+M equipment is very crude. As you've discovered, copying the results of an Audyssey calibration into it does not result in the same frequency response as is provided by the Audyssey filters.

The proprietary filtration algorithm used by Audyssey is much more sophisticated than can be provided by either graphic or parametric equalizers, although the latter often can produce quite good results.

Unfortunately, it isn't obvious to me what you're actually trying to accomplish. 

Audyssey doesn't provide any significant adjustments in what's provided in the receiver. Some adjustments are possible if you're willing to spend another $700 or so on an Audyssey Pro license and its Windows software.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Ah, thanks for the explanatiion, and thanks to selden for additional clarity.

As selden answered, the msnual EQ is a different type of equalizer. It gives the ability to vary the result, but only a fraction of the granularity. AUDYSSEY (XT32) provides thousands of filter points, compared to a handful for the manual EQ, and the crude copy-paste function simplifies the data to the form suitable for the manual EQ. The result will be quite different.


----------



## stonemarten (Jan 4, 2016)

Dear all,

thanks for the answers, very clear now 

what I was trying to accomplish was to get a better response and remove some of the "bumps" in the FR... it's a pricey system (for my pocket  ) and I would like to get the best out of it

So the only solution is some MiniDSP or similar? but the MiniDSP room correction hardware is only at 96kHz instead of 192kHz: do you have any recommendation here?

thanks!

cheers


----------



## John Stewart (Jul 5, 2014)

I didn't think Audyssey was at 192k either. May be worth a call to Denon to confirm. By the way, exact same issue with Yamaha and YPAO with respect to copying to manual PEQ filters.

http://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/audyssey-room-eq-interview


----------



## stonemarten (Jan 4, 2016)

Thanks John! Happy to see that wasn't user error 

Sorry I wasn't clear again: if I add a room correction hardware (like dirac live from miniDSP or any other parametric EQ) what's your recommendation? The MiniDSP one is not at 192 internal sampling
Or do I need to stuck with Audiseey and get the result I get today?

Thanks for your recommendation!

cheers


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

stonemarten said:


> Thanks John! Happy to see that wasn't user error
> 
> Sorry I wasn't clear again: if I add a room correction hardware (like dirac live from miniDSP or any other parametric EQ) what's your recommendation? The MiniDSP one is not at 192 internal sampling
> Or do I need to stuck with Audiseey and get the result I get today?
> ...


Not sure which miniDSP unit you are looking at. Their 2-channel Dirac Live model is the DDRC-22A or D, depending on analog or digital I/O, or DA for D in A out. Internal processing is at 96 kHz, and all standard sample rates are supported but are resampled to 96 kHz. Sound quality is very very very good. I have just spent the last 2 weeks listening with my DDRC-22D while completing a speaker review.

I honestly cannot imagine why one would need a higher sample rate. My opinion: I have miniDSP units that run at 48 kHz and others at 96 kHz. I have never heard anything that said the 96 kHz is better. I LIKE THE IDEA of the 96 kHz rate and would choose it given the option. But could never justify it on sonic improvement alone if I had to. A sample rate of 192 vs 96 again I like the idea of the higher sample rate, but can not justify it, and think it would be folly (my opinion 0) to insist on 192 as being the only acceptable option.

Dirac vs. Audyssey: my opinion and that of anyone I know who has given a serious listen to both is that Dirac Live is superior, hands down the better choice. If you are considering Dirac as an option, I STRONGLY recommend it is time to make the Audyssey > Dirac switch now. You will never go back.


----------



## John Stewart (Jul 5, 2014)

Ditto to AudioCraver's comments. 
I would add if you would like Dirac for 2 channel then one of models AudioCraver cited will work well. If your thought was multichannel with your Atmos capable AVR then there will be some limitations to consider depending on your sources, signal chain and desires.
You can download a free demo of DiracLive from Dirac's website if you want to hear and measure what it will do. I believe the PC based version does generate 24/192 filters if that is a critical concern for you. If a PC/Laptop is your primary source it may be a good choice too over the minidsp implementations.


----------



## stonemarten (Jan 4, 2016)

Dear AudioCraver and John,

thanks for share your personal experience here  looks like that a miniDSP product is the right choice, but which?
FYI, 8 channels are enough 

the nanoAVR DL sample at 48kHz, has got dirac live but only HDMI
the nanoAVR HDA has got analog output but it needs 300USD to be upgraded to DL, and still the filter will sample at 48kHz

now let's agree that 96kHz or more have not substantial audible benefits vs 48kHz, but looks like that the HDA has a more capable processor ready in the future for an eventual filter upgrade (my assumption and opinion here)
I would have the nano after the AV, so the Denon will decode every inputs and send the PCM to the nano. As chain, I would have something like that, but I have no idea if technically is possible

option1
all inputs --> AV --> AV HDMI output1 --> tv, output2 --> nano --> analog output --> speakers (or back to the AV as pre-amp signal and sent to the speaker after)
(could it work? will I have any delay in the video/audio sync?)

option2
all inputs --> AV --> AV HDMI ouput1 --> nano --> nano HDMI out --> AV --> pre-amp to speaker, HDMI to TV
(I don't think is possible but this will be the best solution)

note: the TV is the netflix hub, so that input should be sent to the speaker filtered as well
note 2: if I send the PCM signal from the AV, am I going to lose all the decoding benefits? 

as far as I understand, the nano must be put between a device and the AV, but IMHO this have some limitations
- need one nano per device (TV, BD, PC, apple TV, etc.)
- use a cheap BD or others as compressed sound decoder instead of the Denon, so it's a kind of "waste" of resource...

how did you connect your system?

thanks!

cheers


----------



## John Stewart (Jul 5, 2014)

This is where the "limitations" I mentioned come in. :smile:

Not positive that the AVRHDA is upgradable to Dirac.

Do you have powered speakers? They would be needed to connect to the analog outputs of AVRHDA which are 2V max. 

Connecting to pre-amp in on AVR (last part of option 1) won't work.:frown:

What may work is an hdmi switch before AVRDL so that signal chain becomes ALL INPUTS => HDMI SWITCH => AVRDL => DENON. I say "may" because of the limitation of providing LPCM (or more specifically MULTICHANNEL LPCM) to the AVRDL and because I'm really not up to speed on how the TV operating as your Netflix hub works.

For myself its BD player to NANOAVRDL to Receiver. Simple and mostly works without incident. BD player also has Tidal, Vudu and Netflix streaming that I use. DirecTV genii will NOT decode dolby and output MULTICHANNEL lpcm. I have a way to make TV work but don't bother.

And now its time for the opinion portion of this post... My primary reason for Dirac is 2 channel because it produces the best imaging I've been able to obtain and its MUCH better. It also significantly improves the sound quality of the bass on music in my setup. Same for multichannel audio. For movie use its still doing its job but I'm not as particular and would not have bought it for movie use vs YPAO or Audyssey. For movie use I would prioritize dual subs for anyone not already having them because dual subs will also smooth out bass SPL, help with seat to seat differences and get the always welcome additional headroom for movies. (Sorry for going off topic there.)


----------



## stonemarten (Jan 4, 2016)

John,

thanks for your suggestions!

So the only way to get the system works looks like add the DDRC-88A, using the pre-out analog straight to the speakers (they are active), but it costs 1k.... definitely out of budget
is there any other EQ more than the MiniDSP?
I'm old enough to remember that old receivers had the EQ I/O, but it's not the case anymore...
I'll try the dirac live demo as you suggested and let you know my opinion, based on the measurements and listening feedback

cheers


----------



## John Stewart (Jul 5, 2014)

stonemarten said:


> So the only way to get the system works looks like add the DDRC-88A, using the pre-out analog straight to the speakers (they are active), but it costs 1k.... definitely out of budget


Unless you like it enough to develop a case of upgradeitis!
Agree with your set up the 88A or 88A-BM would be the best choice. I believe Ellis on this forum uses two of them for his atmos set up. He and AudioCraver are both very knowledgeable if you ever go that route and need a hand.



stonemarten said:


> I'm old enough to remember that old receivers had the EQ I/O, but it's not the case anymore...


Sadly, me too. I'd wager minidsp and dirac would love to see a digital multichannel "tape monitor" type circuit.



stonemarten said:


> I'll try the dirac live demo as you suggested and let you know my opinion, based on the measurements and listening feedback


Look forward to hearing what you think.


----------

