# Dynamic Eq or Manual Eq



## Raikugen (Jul 6, 2011)

I have been messing around with my receiver and speakers for quite time some now, but I still have one question. Is it worth setting the equalizer in the receiver manually over using audyssey dynamic eq? The equalizer is the one setting I haven't messed with yet, partially because I don't know how it works. The main reason I want to know this is because I play a lot of POV and third person video games, and it's bad to use dynamic eq on those kinds of games because the perspective constantly changes. I am wondering if setting up the equalizer properly would be able to remedy this problem and allow me to stop having to turn dynamic eq on and off whenever I play games.


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

Raikugen said:


> I have been messing around with my receiver and speakers for quite time some now, but I still have one question. Is it worth setting the equalizer in the receiver manually over using audyssey dynamic eq? The equalizer is the one setting I haven't messed with yet, partially because I don't know how it works. The main reason I want to know this is because I play a lot of POV and third person video games, and it's bad to use dynamic eq on those kinds of games because the perspective constantly changes. I am wondering if setting up the equalizer properly would be able to remedy this problem and allow me to stop having to turn dynamic eq on and off whenever I play games.


The manual EQ replaces AudysseyEQ, not DynamicEQ. DynamicEQ is compensation for low level listening.
Manual EQ is limited in its resolution and control compared with AudysseyEQ. 
DynamicEQ can be defeated while leaving AudysseyEQ in effect.


----------



## Raikugen (Jul 6, 2011)

I see I was just a little confused because I came across some random forums and people said manual eq was better. They were probably just going off of personal preference though. Thank you for helping me so quickly.


----------



## jaddie (Jan 16, 2008)

Raikugen said:


> I see I was just a little confused because I came across some random forums and people said manual eq was better. They were probably just going off of personal preference though. Thank you for helping me so quickly.


Some will say manual EQ is better, but the reality is that to beat what's possible with Audyssey takes not only the right EQ hardware, but a degree of skill and understanding that is way above the ability of most people. Even then, Audyssey's analysis method beats what can be done manually, and the resulting filters do things that very few conventional EQ devices can. If you had enough time, patience, hardware/money (same thing), you could get the system sounding as good. But who as all that?


----------



## Zeitgeist (Apr 4, 2009)

Raikugen said:


> I see I was just a little confused because I came across some random forums and people said manual eq was better. They were probably just going off of personal preference though. Thank you for helping me so quickly.


Manual EQ is very dependent on how well the room is measured and treated.


----------



## jaddie (Jan 16, 2008)

Zeitgeist said:


> Manual EQ is very dependent on how well the room is measured


Agreed, and this is where automatic eq systems, Audyssey in particular, shine: the ability to get good high res measurements.


Zeitgeist said:


> and treated.


Again agreed, but treatment is equally important in auto eq. Eq and treatment don't address the same problems, though auto eq can help improve the results in a room lacking treatment. It's a fine point, but Audyssey can reduce the negative impact of poor acoustics but it does not replace treatment. For example, if you have a huge bass null caused by a modal issue, no Eq will fill it. If you have a long reverb time, that's beyond any auto eq as well. But both can be addressed with treatment.


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

Zeitgeist said:


> Manual EQ is very dependent on how well the room is measured and treated.


It also depends on the flexibility and resolution of the manual EQ. In the case of all AVRs and prepros with Audyssey XT or XT32, the included manual EQ is clumsy by comparison.


----------



## jaddie (Jan 16, 2008)

Remember when manual EQ was 1/3 octave? Like attempting micro-surgury with a backhoe. No EQ built into an AVR is any better, usually much worse. External EQ can have decent flexibility, but you still have the issue of measurement. People sometimes think that just because they can run an FFT and see fractional-octave resolution. But even if you can resolve a 1/24th of an octave, single point measurements are meaningless, so you need multiple point measurements. How to do you combine them? If you do a spacial/temporal average of an RTA, or just average multiple swept-sine shots, you throw out detail, basically reduce measurement resolution, but you don't have much choice. Audyssey's fuzzy clustering algorithm takes care of combining multiple points and ignoring wild single point specific data, while preserving similar data common to all points. Basically the combining process increases resolution, not decrease.

Let's not forget that its Fast!


----------

