# REW/Audyssey Mic



## Reese

I have been looking at REW for some time now and have decided to get a more familiar on how it works and functions before committing to a calibrated mic (UMIK-1) and MiniDSP.

By accident I came across a HT thread that talked about using the Audyssey mic for measurements (I currently have 3 of them). My plan was to plug the Audyssey mic into laptop with a USB Audio Adapter (Turtle Creek Amigo ii) then output through the HDMI to my AV Receiver. My hope is that using the USB adapter will bypass my laptop’s sound card for better measuring results compared to plugging the Audyssey mic directly in the headset jack. Would this be the correct approach?

Thanks.


----------



## Savjac

Please do not consider this as law, but it is my understanding that using the mic for your processor will not work for rew. It was voiced to Audyssey and nothing else.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Savjac said:


> Please do not consider this as law, but it is my understanding that using the mic for your processor will not work for rew. It was voiced to Audyssey and nothing else.


You are right, it is not a good idea. The reason is not that the Audyssey mic is "voiced" but that there is a generic correction built into the mated firmware for that mic and an appropriate correction curve is not available for use with REW or other applications. In other words, it will "work" but the outcome is not predictably reliable.


----------



## Reese

Yes, you are both correct, the Onkyo has it's own internal calibration in the AV reciever....although I doubt the audyssey mics are individually calibrated...probably a general averaging but I'm only guessing. 

One last question regarding REW. Once a measurement is taken and adjusted, corrected or EQ'd, can you run a test tone or simulation with the new target curve? I am probably wording this improperly but what I am trying to do is test out several target curves before deciding to buy a parametic eq (MiniDSP/Behringer). 

I am testing subwoofer placement with and without Multeqxt32 and may decide I do not need an EQ. The purchase of an EQ is not a big deal but I'd rather test and play before buying something I may never use.

Thanks.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Reese said:


> One last question regarding REW. Once a measurement is taken and adjusted, corrected or EQ'd, can you run a test tone or simulation with the new target curve?


No, REW cannot generate an “equalized” test tone.

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## Reese

Understood...thanks.


----------



## Reese

My initial impressions.

REW is definitely an interesting tool that can be a real “eye opener”. Even as a rank amateur I understood how badly rooms effect sound…but seeing it on a graph can be “interesting” to say the least. 

Overall REW is a great mapping tool but it does take a fair amount of time to initially setup and properly navigate through the various filters and options. This is obviously not “plug and play solution” like Audyssey, but there is enough online literature to get your through the initial setup.

I won’t bore everyone with graphs and waterfalls because the biggest challenge after measuring is deciding what to do with all those measurements. Some folks will eq….treat…or move things around; others will decide to do nothing. Either way, REW is still a great learning tool!

Thanks to REW and HTS for providing such a great service.


----------



## pepar

Kal Rubinson said:


> You are right, it is not a good idea. The reason is not that the Audyssey mic is "voiced" but that there is a generic correction built into the mated firmware for that mic and an appropriate correction curve is not available for use with REW or other applications. In other words, it will "work" but the outcome is not predictably reliable.


Some years ago I traveled this line of thinking and sent Cross Spectrum my Audyssey Pro mic for,testing/generation of calibration files. (That is the only thing needed to use it with software like REW.). Well, the cost was not appreciably less that simply buying a calibrated mic from CS, but the "not a good idea" comes into play when you don't include the Pro mic's phantom power supply and Herb zaps it with the industry-standard 45v instead of the 5v (or so IIRC) that it uses. Fortunately, the calibration process involves only the briefest of powering and no damage was done. Sufficiently freaked out, and tail between my legs, I bought an EMM-6 shortly thereafter. 

Another tidbit here ... by not sending the Pro mic's phantom power supply/PREAMP (doh!) to be included in the signal circuit, it's response was not incorporated into the cal file.

Jeff


----------



## Sonnie

Hey Jeff... have you compared your calibrated Audyssey Pro mic to another calibrated mic? That mic amp may not be that far off from flat.


----------



## pepar

Sonnie, I have never compared the Audyssey Pro mic to my EMM-6, but it has been suggested by a few people that the preamp is likely flat enough to not color the results. 

I do have the three basic calibrations of the EMM-6 and only 0 degrees for the Audyssey mic.

Jeff


----------



## Reese

Below is the link comparing Audyssey and several other popular mics. I am reasonably sure that many mics will do just fine with or without calibration for certain tasks like subwoofer placement/equalization or room treatment. 

My UMIK is backordered so in the mean time I've been using the Audyssey mic that came with my receiver. I am using this on a Window 7 laptop with a cheap $8 USB audio adapter. The laptop outputs signal via HDMI to Onkyo reciever. I set this up the same way you would with a USB mic like the UMM-6 or UMIK. 

It will be interesting to see how the Audyssey compares with UMIK when it arrives, but my guess is they will both equally accurate for the things I'm interested in testing.

Audyssey Mic Test:http://www.avsforum.com/t/1328136/measurement-mic-shootout-emm-6-wm-61a-rs-33-2055-audyssey


----------



## Sonnie

This is your EMM-6 vs Audyssey mic...










Is this the Audyssey Pro mic?

Also... each of the Audyssey Pro mics have their own calibration file, as does each EMM-6, so any two of them could have better or worse response variances when compared to each other. This is just the two you have.

Perhaps a temporary solution if you are having to wait and want something fairly close in the meantime... more so for the low end. The high end has some pretty glaring differences.


----------



## Reese

I don't believe this was a "Pro" Audyssey mic as they look different then the "standard" eifel tower Audyssey mic.

We all have our confort zones....one man's fairly good is another man's glaring difference. I would say this...if those measurements are accurate, I would have been better served buying a $100 steak dinner instead of the UMIK.


----------



## Sonnie

You are right about those particular measurements as I did not pay close enough attention to the axis scaling. 2dB is NOT glaring by any means.

Although I have tested a regular Audyssey mic previously and it was indeed glaringly different. Perhaps they have improved them ... or you may have just gotten a good one.


----------



## Reese

Sonnie....just a point of clarification so I don't confuse anyone reading this posting. The link to the audyssey mic test is just something I came across on the web....I am not affiliated with it in any way. Those freq graphs are not mine.

My own personal audyssey mic may be accurate, or as you noted could have some glaring issues. I won't know until the calibrated mic comes in and I compare them side by side. 

Just a point of interest. A few years ago I had purchased an Onkyo rc-180 (Multeq) with a defective mic. Corresponding with Onkyo and Audyssey by email I was told that all the "new version" mics were calibrated to be + /- 2db. Of course we shouldn't draw too much from one email but it is interested to note that the tested mic in the link I provided corresponds nicely with the Audyssey claim. As always your mileage may vary.


----------



## Sonnie

Understood on the testing. I did not pay attention to who was doing the posting and just assumed it was yours. Sorry about that.

As far being calibrated within +/- 2dB... they include a calibration file in the receiver/processor that the mic comes with, and all of those calibration files will cause all the various mics to be calibrated to +/- 2dB. However, that does not mean that all the raw mics will necessarily be within +/- 2dB of each other. If that were the case, they probably would not need calibration files... and the fact they are calibrating them to within +/- 2dB would indicate the variances are likely greater than 2dB between various mics.

Therefore, the tested mic would not necessarily correspond to their claims, as it included no calibration file, and their claims include calibration files, since they are calibrated mics. With calibration it might have been a pure trace of the other mic. In this case, it appears the tested mic just happened to be +/- 2dB.


----------



## Reese

Yes, I see where you are going and you are probably correct.

I also believe that the vast majority of folks (including me) are better off buying something like an UMIK and be done with it. No fussing or having to worry about something working or not. 

All kidding side about the Audyssey Mics and steak dinners, I'm still pretty amazed that a measly $100 buys you a system like REW/UMIK.


----------



## jmoussa

hi everyone. Could someone please advise me whats the best way to calibrate multiple subs . they are on the same side but at different distances. Ill be using audussey multi xt . No spl meter , just the one i have on my phone. its a 7.2 avr but it reads the two as one.

much appreciated.


----------



## jmoussa

im also looking at getting 2 sb 13 ultras


----------

