Audyssey MultEQ Discussion Thread

**Kal Rubinson** · **07-24-09, 06:54 PM**

Quote:

Lordoftherings wrote:

And we all know, that he's been writing about audio for as long as there are cars in our streets (well, almost).

There are cars in our streets?!?!? I gotta get out more.

**warpdrive** · **07-25-09, 11:55 AM**

I guess my point was: Audyssey does a great job but that doesn't mean you can't go in a tweak it a bit afterward for better results. In my case it did a great job of optimizing across three seats but I felt it sacrificed a bit too much in the primary seating location. I have a feeling it tried to optimize for flatness in the 60-100 Hz range, but the sound lost impact in the 40-60 range. I found that bumping the level up helped a bit.

I know that my Onkyo uses a flat target curve in THX but then I still end up with THX processing. I should have the choice. I want a totally flat response curve for music listening. I want a receiver that has EQ profiles for different inputs, custom video settings for different inputs. That's why I'm looking to replace my Onkyo

**brucek** · **07-25-09, 01:19 PM**

Quote:

I want a totally flat response curve for music listening.

Since human hearing doesn't follow a flat response, wouldn't it be better to contour the response to more closely match how you hear?

brucek

**warpdrive** · **07-25-09, 02:52 PM**

Quote:

brucek wrote:

Since human hearing doesn't follow a flat response, wouldn't it be better to contour the response to more closely match how you hear?

brucek

No because when I listen to music in two channel mode, it doesn't need any EQ

Denons offer this option on their receivers but my Onkyo does not for some reason
Posted via Mobile Device

**Kal Rubinson** · **07-25-09, 03:31 PM**

Quote:

brucek wrote:

Since human hearing doesn't follow a flat response, wouldn't it be better to contour the response to more closely match how you hear?
brucek

No. Flat or slightly tipped down to compensate for the different acoustics in the concert hall and home. If you compensate for your hearing variations then, in comparison to live music, the system will sound different to you and to others. Now, if you have a personal preference for a little tweaking to make you happy, that is another story.

Quote:

warpdrive wrote:

No because when I listen to music in two channel mode, it doesn't need any EQ

Really? Do you change rooms?

**brucek** · **07-25-09, 03:45 PM**

Quote:

in comparison to live music

But I always thought that a band would adjust the overall response when doing their sound checks to tailor the result that accounted for hearing, and the room they were in. This then would offer the listener the same SPL level from a low, mid, and high frequency signal for example, that they would perceive as flat.

In the home, if you play a low, mid, and high frequency signal at the same level, you'll perceive them quite differently.

brucek

**warpdrive** · **07-25-09, 03:46 PM**

Quote:

Kal Rubinson wrote:

No. Flat or slightly tipped down to compensate for the different acoustics in the concert hall and home. If you compensate for your hearing variations then, in comparison to live music, the system will sound different to you and to others. Now, if you have a personal preference for a little tweaking to make you happy, that is another story.

Really? Do you change rooms?

I have a separate system that sounds great and it has no processing at all
Posted via Mobile Device

**Kal Rubinson** · **07-25-09, 04:21 PM**

Quote:

brucek wrote:

But I always thought that a band would adjust the overall response when doing their sound checks to tailor the result that accounted for hearing, and the room they were in. This then would offer the listener the same SPL level from a low, mid, and high frequency signal for example, that they would perceive as flat.

Really? I have no knowledge of that as I attend acoustical performances almost exclusively. The conductor does have a role in balancing the sound for a particular hall but that is with regard to general hearing, not anything specific. Nonetheless, whatever is heard live should be conveyed to the listener at home (via mics, recording, mastering, playback, etc) as accurately (flat) in order for it to effectively recreate the original. Any tweaking, for taste or hearing problems, will deviate from accuracy.

Quote:

In the home, if you play a low, mid, and high frequency signal at the same level, you'll perceive them quite differently.

Yup and the differences will be different at different levels, as well. That is how we hear the world normally and any compensation will detract from the semblance of the real event. In other words, our hearing mechanisms are a fixed variable for each of us.

**Kal Rubinson** · **07-25-09, 04:24 PM**

Quote:

warpdrive wrote:

I have a separate system that sounds great and it has no processing at all
Posted via Mobile Device

Good for you. Most people who feel that way, and who do not have an acoustically engineered listening space, have adapted to the sound of home stereo and adopted it as reference. That does not mean it is accurate.

So, my point is: If you have the stereo and mch systems in the same room, why should you not correct the acoustics for the stereo system when you acknowledge the use of it for MCH?

**warpdrive** · **07-25-09, 05:44 PM**

Quote:

Kal Rubinson wrote:

Good for you. Most people who feel that way, and who do not have an acoustically engineered listening space, have adapted to the sound of home stereo and adopted it as reference. That does not mean it is accurate.

So, my point is: If you have the stereo and mch systems in the same room, why should you not correct the acoustics for the stereo system when you acknowledge the use of it for MCH?

Kal, I never claimed it was 100% accurate, but it's a separate system in a completely separate room, and it's a traditional integrated amp with 2 speakers and CD player (with no options for EQ except the crude tone controls), which is where I spend my time listening to music, and I think it sounds tonally quite fine even compared to my HT system which has Audyssey XT. For the price I paid for that integrated amp, I could have easily bought a receiver that has Audyssey but I didn't think I needed it.

**Kal Rubinson** · **07-25-09, 06:57 PM**

Quote:

warpdrive wrote:

Kal, I never claimed it was 100% accurate, but it's a separate system in a completely separate room, and it's a traditional integrated amp with 2 speakers and CD player (with no options for EQ except the crude tone controls), which is where I spend my time listening to music, and I think it sounds tonally quite fine even compared to my HT system which has Audyssey XT. For the price I paid for that integrated amp, I could have easily bought a receiver that has Audyssey but I didn't think I needed it.

I have no argument with that traditional approach which can be extremely satisfying. My argument is with the proposition, often made, that one needs/uses the EQ for the mch system but that it is not necessary for stereo, in the same room. The room either needs the help or it does not and that determination is independent of the number of channels in use.

**warpdrive** · **07-25-09, 07:05 PM**

I have no qualms with using EQ unlike some "purists". But I'd rather leave it flat than use the tone controls in most of the standard stereo component implementations of it. The only one I"ve liked was an old NAD amp which seemed to affect a narrower range of frequencies (the actual extremes). If there somebody offered a reasonably priced but decent 2 channel int-amp that had Audyssey, I'd be lining up with my credit card.

**Lordoftherings** · **07-25-09, 07:33 PM**

Ok Wayne, I used the word "off", because the poster used it, so I wanted to make life very simple, by also using his own word.

If it would be my own choice of word, I would say that the Radio Shack Sound Pressure Level Meter is not totally "accurate" in the lower frequencies of let say, from about 30hz or so and below, and also in the higher frequencies of let say, from about 10khz or so and above.

But I totally agree with you; using the RS SPL Meter is not the tool to check the frequency response of your "ROOM", from the sound emanating from your speakers' drivers, and bouncing all around from the walls, floor & ceiling.
It's just a ball game to put you in the end field.

Best regards,
Bob

**Lordoftherings** · **07-25-09, 07:52 PM**

Quote:

Kal Rubinson wrote:

There are cars in our streets?!?!? Jeez, I gotta get out more.

LOL. Indeed, Kal, the computer age is blinding us from the real ouside life of our neighborhoods.

**Lordoftherings** · **07-25-09, 08:18 PM**

Quote:

warpdrive wrote:

I have no qualms with using EQ unlike some "purists". But I'd rather leave it flat than use the tone controls in most of the standard stereo component implementations of it. The only one I"ve liked was an old NAD amp which seemed to affect a narrower range of frequencies (the actual extremes). If there somebody offered a reasonably priced but decent 2 channel int-amp that had Audyssey, I'd be lining up with my credit card.

You'll need a separate Audyssey Sound EQ for that.

* Audyssey Sound EQualizer
@ http://www.audyssey.com/soundequalizer/index.html

* Audyssey Sub EQ
@ http://www.audyssey.com/hometheater/subeq.html

________________________________

1. Audyssey Sound Equalizer - Review

@ http://www.avrev.com/home-theater-ac...equalizer.html

2. Audyssey MultEQ Pro Sound Equalizer Review

@ http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/a...ound-equalizer

*** Get that credit card easily accessible.

Bob

**Wayne A. Pflughaupt** · **07-25-09, 11:00 PM**

Quote:

brucek wrote:

But I always thought that a band would adjust the overall response when doing their sound checks to tailor the result that accounted for hearing, and the room they were in. This then would offer the listener the same SPL level from a low, mid, and high frequency signal for example, that they would perceive as flat.

Ah, would that we should be so lucky! Truth is, most musicians - at least the "band" types who often have no formal training - can tell you if their drums sound good (to them), or that their Strat sounds awesome through a Marshall half-stack with a 100-watt head outfitted with this or that kind of tubes, but have no clue how to achieve an accurate mix. The majority of live sound engineers I’ve come across (or heard their “product”) are just as bad, capable of delivering at best a muddy-sounding mix.

Regards,
Wayne

**warpdrive** · **07-25-09, 11:48 PM**

Quote:

Lordoftherings wrote:

You'll need a separate Audyssey Sound EQ for that.

* Audyssey Sound EQualizer
@ http://www.audyssey.com/soundequalizer/index.html

* Audyssey Sub EQ
@ http://www.audyssey.com/hometheater/subeq.html

________________________________

*** Get that credit card easily accessible.

Bob

I hear my credit card running away scared and whimpering.

Here's hoping I win that giveaway SVS bass EQ unit

**Wayne A. Pflughaupt** · **07-25-09, 11:52 PM**

Quote:

brucek wrote:

Since human hearing doesn't follow a flat response, wouldn't it be better to contour the response to more closely match how you hear?

Quote:

Kal Rubinson wrote:

No. Flat or slightly tipped down to compensate for the different acoustics in the concert hall and home. If you compensate for your hearing variations then, in comparison to live music, the system will sound different to you and to others.

A house curve is compensation for the room more so than the ear.

Quote:

Kal Rubinson wrote:

Quote:

In the home, if you play a low, mid, and high frequency signal at the same level, you'll perceive them quite differently.

Yup and the differences will be different at different levels, as well.

Just calibrate the system for the level you normally listen and it will be adequate for most level variations from that point, except extreme ones. With extreme changes from your normal settings you typically aren’t doing critical listening anyway – ultra-low for background music, or ultra high when you’re “showing off” the system's capabilities. In these instances, typically all that’s needed (if anything) is a simple level adjustment of the sub, not a total re-curving.

Quote:

Kal Rubinson wrote:

The conductor does have a role in balancing the sound for a particular hall but that is with regard to general hearing, not anything specific. Nonetheless, whatever is heard live should be conveyed to the listener at home (via mics, recording, mastering, playback, etc) as accurately (flat) in order for it to effectively recreate the original.

Hmm, curious. The conductor makes adjustments for the room to make sure the sound is balanced, but we shouldn't do the same in ours?

It’s pretty easy to tell if you have a house curve slope or not (and most people do, even if they claim they have flat response). Just play broadband pink noise through your system at an adequate level, and switch your SPL meter between A- and C-weighting. As you probably know, in the A-weighting setting, the meter ignores (i.e. rolls out) response below 1000 Hz, while C-weighting registers down to 40 Hz or so. If the SPL reading increases when you switch the meter to the C setting, then you have louder levels below 1000 Hz than you do above. IOW, you don't have flat response. You have a house curve.

Regards,
Wayne

**Lordoftherings** · **07-26-09, 12:22 AM**

Quote:

warpdrive wrote:

I hear my credit card running away scared and whimpering.

Here's hoping I win that giveaway SVS bass EQ unit

Yeah, I her you. $2,500 is no small pocket change.

I wish you good luck on winning that SVS SubEQ1, you seem like you deserve it.

**Kal Rubinson** · **07-26-09, 12:13 PM**

Quote:

Wayne A. Pflughaupt wrote:

Hmm, curious. The conductor makes adjustments for the room to make sure the sound is balanced, but we shouldn't do the same in ours?

Not if you want to hear what the conductor (and the rest of the recording team) put on the recording. The reproduction system (including the room) should be completely neutral unless, of course, you prefer something different.

**warpdrive** · **08-08-09, 12:27 PM**

I just got my Denon receiver and did an Audyssey calibration. I used the exact same tripod and seating positions, and the difference from my previous Onkyo Audyssey XT calibration is quite substantial. My sub trim setting is +9dB compared to my other channels, whereas on my Onkyo there was only a 4dB difference, and quick check using the ratshack meter seems to confirm that the overall sub level is higher. Now my sub is quite audible and I don't feel the need to bump it up manually at all, in fact the bass is nearly overwhelming. Weird that it seems that the results are the subjectively different. I should break out the REW again.

I'm also enjoying the fact that the Denons have a flat setting which sounds better to my ears than the regular target curve. With the regular target curve, my Paradigms sound kind of dull.

Dynamic EQ and Volume is also a killer feature for regular TV watching. Every receiver should offer this sort of feature. It made buying the Denon worth every cent. Anybody want a gently used Onkyo 875? (j/k, I'm going to keep it)

**brucek** · **08-08-09, 01:21 PM**

Quote:

seems to confirm that the overall sub level is higher

I just got a new Denon receiver too, and found that the bass is indeed boosted more than I would have expected with Audyssey. I like a lot of bass in movies, so it suits me for that.

I do like the Dynamic EQ, especially since I usually listen at low volumes and appreciate the bass boost. I'm not too fussed about the Dynamic Volume, although it does stop all the level jumping when switching channels on the satellite. I found that the default setting for Dynamic Volume was Midnight setting on the Denons, so after changing it to Daytime, the compression wasn't as great, so it's better than I originally felt.

Quote:

I'm also enjoying the fact that the Denons have a flat setting which sounds better to my ears than the regular target curve. With the regular target curve, my Paradigms sound kind of dull.

I believe that the Audyssey Reference setting is flat to about 4KHz, then slightly rolls off to 10KHz, then adds more rolloff from 10KHz-20KHz. This is more for movie watching.
The Audyssey Flat setting is better for music since it has no rolloff.

brucek

**atledreier** · **08-08-09, 01:51 PM**

The difference between the Audyssey runs is probably from subtle changes in measurement position, which can hugely affect the resulting correction. You could probably get the same change with another run with your Onkyo.

Having said that, the only time I feel Audyssey is lacking in bass is if one or more of the measurements are close to a boundary. Keep them at ear level and away from boundaries, and the result is more predictable and usually very satisfactory.

**warpdrive** · **08-09-09, 04:56 PM**

Quote:

atledreier wrote:

The difference between the Audyssey runs is probably from subtle changes in measurement position, which can hugely affect the resulting correction. You could probably get the same change with another run with your Onkyo.
.

I ran the process twice, and I had run the EQ three times on the Onkyo (I was really unhappy with the first two runs, the bass impact seemed completely missing). Maybe the extra resolution of XT is more "picky"?

It's not a scientific conclusion but I really do feel the Denon's calibration puts out more bass. I did try to replicate what I did for the Onkyo, same tripod, same height, middle of the seat of my three seating positions. Even if there is a replication error, the difference in the calibrations is quite noticeable.

Now the begs the question, if the difference in calibration from run to run can be so different, then how do we know that we did a good run? Let's say I do it one day, and then next day I do it again and get a different result, then was it correct the first day or second day?

**Lordoftherings** · **08-09-09, 10:00 PM**

Quote:

warpdrive wrote:

I just got my Denon receiver and did an Audyssey calibration. I used the exact same tripod and seating positions, and the difference from my previous Onkyo Audyssey XT calibration is quite substantial. My sub trim setting is +9dB compared to my other channels, whereas on my Onkyo there was only a 4dB difference, and quick check using the ratshack meter seems to confirm that the overall sub level is higher. Now my sub is quite audible and I don't feel the need to bump it up manually at all, in fact the bass is nearly overwhelming. Weird that it seems that the results are the subjectively different. I should break out the REW again.

I'm also enjoying the fact that the Denons have a flat setting which sounds better to my ears than the regular target curve. With the regular target curve, my Paradigms sound kind of dull.

Dynamic EQ and Volume is also a killer feature for regular TV watching. Every receiver should offer this sort of feature. It made buying the Denon worth every cent. Anybody want a gently used Onkyo 875? (j/k, I'm going to keep it)

By any means, do use the REW again, and each and every time.

* Two different manufacturers, two different implementations.

* Just curious, is it the Denon AVR-3808CI?

Quote:

warpdrive wrote:

I ran the process twice, and I had run the EQ three times on the Onkyo (I was really unhappy with the first two runs, the bass impact seemed completely missing). Maybe the extra resolution of XT is more "picky"?

It's not a scientific conclusion but I really do feel the Denon's calibration puts out more bass. I did try to replicate what I did for the Onkyo, same tripod, same height, middle of the seat of my three seating positions. Even if there is a replication error, the difference in the calibrations is quite noticeable.

Now the begs the question, if the difference in calibration from run to run can be so different, then how do we know that we did a good run? Let's say I do it one day, and then next day I do it again and get a different result, then was it correct the first day or second day?

I found that experimentating with various mic positions from several Audyssey MultEQ XT runs get you closer to satisfying results. Oh, and always by using the full eight maximum mic measurement positions.

For me, Denon and Onkyo receivers have a different sound, with the Denon seeming fuller in the bass and midrange, and the highs sounding more roll-off.
Onkyo, perhaps less roll-off in the highs with less emphasis in the lows and mids.
Both then, still missing that last minute detail and spaciousness (without Audyssey).

"How do we know that we did a good run, from one day to the next"?
Great question. Again, make use of the REW. Try to have your set of ears in top shape each and every day, and make good use of them by listening attentively, but not extensively.
It's all a balancing act, and at the end, your ears plus your common good sense (getting acquainted with a new sound), will dictate you what sounds best from these listening sessions, and in the overall post time period.

* Nothing's perfect in life, only God is.

Cheers,
Bob

Advertisement