Best advice integrating receiver's "room eq" with BFD

[Rambo4]

Hey all, I would like to hear a few opinions on what action should be taken in regards to optimizing my room's overall frequency response curve. I have installed REW on my old laptop and I am waiting on my order for a RS meter and a BFD 1124.

My confusion is centered around whether I should

1) engage the Harman Kardon EZSet/EQ functionality in conjunction with the BFD.

2) run the EZSet/EQ without a subwoofer and then EQ the low freq with the BFD with sub engaged.

3) Set the HK receiver "as is" with manual settings; without EZSet engaged (Tone Out). And rely on room acoustical treatment for higher range balance and only use the BFD for the more problematic low frequency response.

I am leaning toward the third option, as I am usually dissatisfied with the EZSet/EQ settings. They are all over the map. Sometimes it's too bright... then sometimes it sounds like I shoved a pillow through my tweeter when following the onscreen directions to a "T".

Again, I have zero experience with properly configuring a room, so I welcome any pointers in the right direction.

Thanks.

[bpape]

Treating the room will deal with the entire frequency range as well as helping knock down the overall decay time across the spectrum (something EQ can't do). Use the BFD on the sub.

Bryan

[pierrebnh]

Chris @ Audyssey has stated in the past that it's good to use a BFD or SMS-1 on the sub to knock down the big bumps, and let the the AVR/pre-pro MultEQ stuff handle the smaller corrections all across the FR.

After room treatment of course.

[Rambo4]

Hmmm, sounds like something to look into. Correct me if I am wrong, but if a room is treated at the reflection points, and you install bass traps in the proper locations, doesn't that make the room correction software on most receivers a moot point? From personal experience, I can understand using BFD and REW because the low frequency is harder to control, but from what I understand "Eq"ing the high frequencies, you are at risk of adding another process/noise into the system, whereas running the receiver flat with proper reflection points with distances and crossovers set manually, should be all one needs without the extra processing.

I have been seriously looking into a few bass traps from GIK Acoustics once I get through the "finance committee" at home.

[bpape]

IMO, EQ is primarily needed on the bottom end. EQ'ing the top is generally a matter of a room that is not properly treated or can't be properly treated - or - trying to correct for flaws in the frequency response of the speakers themselves.

Sometimes, EQ is useful in the upper bass/lower mids above the subwoofer range due to the inability to place speakers/seating in optimal positions due to real-world restrictions, sharing of room as a family common space, etc.

Every room and situation is different. Proper placement will do a lot to help. Treatment can get 90% of the rest most of the time. Use EQ as required as a finishing touch to smooth the last couple stubborn humps that can't be dealt with other ways for whatever reason.

Bryan

[pierrebnh]

The Audyssey EQ found in today's receivers and pre-pros is aimed at correction to match the response curve of movie content. That is: Flat from 20 Hz to 10 kHz. Then a slight rolloff (-2 dB at 10 kHz down to -6 dB at 20 kHz).

I would expect that rolloff to be difficult to achieve with room treatment alone.

Pioneer and Yamaha have different EQ solutions with likely different target curves. In Pioneer's MCACC's case, I believe the EQ stops below 63Hz anyway.

[bpape]

Yes - and that rolloff is designed to match the rolloff inherent with large venue screens with speakers behind them. I don't consider that an advantage. In fact, Dolby reEQ does just the opposite - it bumps up those frequencies to compensate for speakers behind a screen to give you a more flat response.

Bryan

[pierrebnh]

bpape wrote:

Yes - and that rolloff is designed to match the rolloff inherent with large venue screens with speakers behind them. I don't consider that an advantage. In fact, Dolby reEQ does just the opposite - it bumps up those frequencies to compensate for speakers behind a screen to give you a more flat response.

Bryan

Oh not at all!

First, ReEQ is THX, not Dolby. Second, it was requested by LucasFilms precisely because a flat response was too bright!

See this link for more details.

Also, Thomlinson Holman (TH of THX) is Chief Scientist at Audyssey, fwiw.

[Rambo4]

First, ReEQ is THX, not Dolby. Second, it was requested by LucasFilms precisely because a flat response was too bright!

I am not sure which standard the Harman Kardon Ezset/EQ adheres to, but I do find the subwoofer is almost taken out of the mix... It is always about 8 - 10 db too low. And the surround levels are way off in when checking against a DVD like Avia. I am sure there is a method to the madness, but personally I'll prefer to flatten the low end manually with the BFD when I get it.

[pierrebnh]

Rambo4 wrote:

I am not sure which standard the Harman Kardon Ezset/EQ adheres to, but I do find the subwoofer is almost taken out of the mix... It is always about 8 - 10 db too low. And the surround levels are way off in when checking against a DVD like Avia. I am sure there is a method to the madness, but personally I'll prefer to flatten the low end manually with the BFD when I get it.

EZSet/EQ does parametric EQ just like the BFD, iirc. I doubt it offers nearly the same number of filters to tweak the low-end as a BFD.

FWIW, I used both the BFD and the Denon's MultEQ together for a while. Then I redid with just MultEQ and the BFD taken out.

I haven't missed it.

[Rambo4]

I will try the EZset only method and measure the results. With proper placement, I may not have to jump into the BFD right away. I have to experiment more first and see what the curve is like.